Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

)

UNION OF GEORGIA, INC.,

)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

)

UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA,

)

INC., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES )

UNION OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

)

INC., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES )

UNION OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

SECURITY AND U.S. CUSTOMS

)

AND BORDER PROTECTION,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

INTRODUCTION

1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, American Civil

Liberties Union of North Carolina, American Civil Liberties Union of West

Virginia, and American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina (collectively,

“Plaintiffs” or “ACLU”) bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act

111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 21
(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., as amended, to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to a FOIA request sent by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017 (“Request”), and to promptly disclose the requested records.
2. The Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 1”), as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order, identically titled, Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 2”) (collectively, “Executive Orders”). A true and correct copy of the Request is attached as Exhibit A.
3. Specifically, the Request seeks records concerning CBP’s local implementation of the Executive Orders at sites within the purview of CBP’s College Park Field Office. These include Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charleston International Airport and
2
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 21
Yeager International Airport (“Local International Airports”) and the Atlanta, Charlotte, and Charleston ports of entry (“Ports of Entry”).
4. Among other things, the Executive Orders purport to halt refugee admissions and bar entrants from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
5. Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Orders has been the subject of significant public concern, as reflected by mass protests around the country, substantial news coverage, and numerous lawsuits filed following the President’s signing of each Executive Order.
6. Over the weekend of January 27–29, 2017, at least five lawsuits resulted in emergency court orders enjoining implementation of various sections of Executive Order No. 1.1 On March 15, 2017, a district judge enjoined implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 2.2
1 Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. CV 17-0702, 2017 WL 396531 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017); Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-CV-10154, 2017 WL 386550 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126, 2017 WL 388532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-CV-116, 2017 WL 386549 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017); Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017). 2 Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).
3
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 21
7. News reports described Defendants’ implementation of the Executive
Orders as “chaotic” and “total[ly] lack[ing] . . . clarity and direction.” 3
8. Official DHS statements reflected this confusion. For example, DHS
stated on January 28 that Executive Order No. 1 would “bar green card holders.”4
The next day, however, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed “the entry of lawful
permanent residents to be in the national interest”5 and the government clarified
that Executive Order No. 1 did not apply to green card holders.6
9. Reportedly spurred by this chaos, on January 29, Senators Tammy
Duckworth and Dick Durbin called upon the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security to investigate Defendants’ implementation of
Executive Order No. 1.7 The Senators specifically sought information regarding:
3 See, e.g., Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-ofmuslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/. 4 See Max Greenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, THE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-banbars-green-card-holders-report. 5 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-united-states. 6 See Robert Mackey, As Protests Escalate, Trump Retreats From Barring Green Card Holders, THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumpsexecutive-order-no-longer-bars-green-card-holders/. 7 See Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at
4
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 21
any guidance Defendants provided to the White House in developing the order; any directions that were provided to Defendants in implementing it; whether CBP officers complied with the relevant court orders; and whether DHS and CBP officers kept a list of individuals that they had detained at ports of entry under the order. In response, the Inspector General directed Defendants’ personnel to preserve all records “that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating the implementation of” Executive Order No. 1.8
10. Upon information and belief, the January 27, 2017 Executive Order No. 1 resulted in at least eleven people being detained at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Upon information and belief, a 76-year-old with a heart condition and glaucoma was one of the eleven people detained after returning from Iran. Further, a CNN producer was detained at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, despite being a lawful permanent resident and having the proper paperwork.
11. Upon information and belief, when Georgia Congressmen John Lewis and Hank Johnson arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on January 28, 2017 to ascertain how many people were being detained pursuant to
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-ofmuslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-preservation/. 8 Id.
5
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 21
Executive Order No. 1, immigration officials reportedly refused to provide the Congressmen with any information. It was not until after the Congressmen refused to leave the Airport and sat with waiting family members that immigration officials met privately with the Congressmen. After the meeting, Congressmen Lewis reported that there were no written protocols for enforcing the Executive Order. See Jeremy Redmon, “Congressmen: 11 held at Atlanta airport after Trump’s executive order,” ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt-politics/congressmen-held-atlanta-airportafter-trump-executive-order/UKb3ZMcfi85YzAuCiNOFjI.
12. During the time that Executive Order No. 1 was in effect, a number of families contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, seeking information and legal representation for their family members who were traveling on immigration visas, non-immigration visas, and legal permanent resident documents, and who had been told that their family members would either be detained or would not be allowed to enter or re-enter the United States.
13. During the time that Executive Order No. 1 was in effect, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia was contacted by a number of families whose relatives had valid visas to enter the United States but who nevertheless were not allowed to board planes and thus were denied entry into the United States.
6
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 21
14. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Sunday, January 29, 2017 to protest Executive Order No. 1.
15. Similar protests occurred at Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charleston International Airport, and Yeager International Airport.
16. Disclosure of the records Plaintiffs seek through this action would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders through the College Park Field Office, including in particular at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Such information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable.
17. This action is necessary because Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with a determination as to whether they will comply with the Request, although more than 20 business days have elapsed since Defendants received the Request.
JURISDICTION 18. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
7
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 21
VENUE 19. Venue in the Northern District of Georgia is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) as the requested agency records are, upon information and belief, situated within this District at CBP facilities at or near Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Atlanta Port of Entry Office and because one of the Plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in the Northern District of Georgia. For the same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 20. Assignment to the Atlanta Division is proper under LR 3.1(A), App. A, I because one of the Plaintiffs resides in Fulton County and, upon information and belief, the requested agency records are located in Fulton County.
PARTIES 21. Plaintiffs are non-profit, 501(c)(4) membership organizations that educate the public about the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation, provide analysis of pending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators. 22. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
8
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 21
23. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component of DHS and is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
24. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore believe that Defendants have possession, custody, or control of the requested records.
FACTS 25. On February 2, 2017 Plaintiffs sent the Request to CBP’s College Park Field Office via certified, trackable mail, with a tracking number of Federal Express # 785490788347; and to CBP’s FOIA Officer at CBP Headquarters via certified, trackable mail, with a tracking number of Federal Express #785490864342. 26. The Request sought copies of CBP’s local interpretation and enforcement of the Executive Order at: 1) certain airports specified in the Request, namely, Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charleston International Airport and Yeager International Airport (“Local International Airports”); and 2) certain Port of Entry offices specified in the Request, including the Atlanta Port of Entry Office, Charlotte Port of Entry Office, and Charleston Port of Entry Office (“Port of Entry Offices”). The Request expressly did not seek information held in the records of CBP Headquarters.
9
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 21
27. Specifically, the Request sought the following: 1. “Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP’s interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at Local International Airports: a. President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017 and titled ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States’; b. Any guidance ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in CBP’s online FAQ;9 c. Associate Director of Field Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Daniel M. Renaud’s email, sent at 11:12 A.M. on January 27, 2017, instructing DHS employees that they could not adjudicate
9 To assist CBP in responding, the Request included the following information in a footnote for reference: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/bordersecurity/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (‘The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.’) (emphasis added).”
10
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 21
any immigration claims from the seven targeted countries;10 d. Judge Donnelly’s Decision and Order granting an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Eastern District of New York on January 28, 2017, including records related to CBP’s efforts to comply with the court’s oral order requiring prompt production of a list of all class members detained by CBP;11 e. Judge Brinkema’s Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017;12 f. Judge Zilly’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on January 28, 2017;13
10 The following footnote was included for reference: “See Alice Speri and Ryan Devereaux, Turmoil at DHS and State Department—‘There Are People Literally Crying in the Office Here,’ THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/asylum-officialsand-state-department-in-turmoil-there-are-people-literally-crying-in-the-office-here/.” 11 The following footnote was included for reference: “Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/legaldocument/darweesh-v-trump-decision-and-order.” 12 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/TRO-order-signed.pdf.”
11
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 21

g. Judge Burroughs’ Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017;14
h. Judge Gee’s Order granting an Amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District of California on January 29, 2017;15
i. Assurances from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at Philadelphia International Airport under the Executive Order would be admitted to the United States and released from custody on Sunday, January 29, 2017;
j. DHS’s ‘Response to Recent Litigation’ statement, issued on January 29, 2017;16

13 The following footnote was included for reference: “Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Seattle-Order.pdf.”

14 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6-TRO-Jan-29-2017.pdf.”

15 The following footnote was included for reference: “Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 17-

0702

(C.D.

Cal.

Jan.

29,

2017),

available

at

https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_-_order_re_tro.pdf.”

16 The following footnote was included for reference: “Department of Homeland Security Response to Recent Litigation, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recentlitigation.”

12
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 21
k. DHS Secretary John Kelly’s ‘Statement on the Entry of Lawful Permanent Residents Into the United States,’ issued on January 29, 2017;[17]
l. DHS’s ‘Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the President’s Executive Order,’ issued on January 29, 2017;18 and
m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017.
2. Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including:
17 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-united-states. 18 The following footnote was included for reference: “DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President’s Executive Order, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/dhs-statement-compliance-courtorders-and-presidents-executive-order.”
13
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 21

a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or

subject to secondary screening, extending questioning, an

enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver

at Local International Airports both as of the date of this

request and as of the date on which this request is

processed; and

b. The total number of individuals who have been detained

or subjected to secondary screening, extending

questioning, an enforcement examination, or

consideration for a waiver for any length of time at Local

International Airports since January 27, 2017, including

the number of individuals who have been

i.

released,

ii.

transferred into immigration detention, or

iii.

removed from the United States;

3. Records concerning the number of individuals who have been

removed from Local International Airports from January 27,

2017 to date pursuant to the Executive Order;

14
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 21
4. Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date with valid visas or green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return; and
5. Records containing the ‘guidance’ that was ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive Order.”19
Exh. A at 6-9. 28. The Request included an application for expedited processing, on the
grounds that there is a “compelling need” for these records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because the information requested is “urgen[tly]” needed by an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information “to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Exh. A at 10.
29. The Request provided detail showing that the ACLU is primarily engaged in disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given that a critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU’s
19 The following footnote was included for reference: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entryunited-states (‘The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.’) (emphasis added).”
15
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 21
mission is to obtain information about government activity, analyze that information, and publish and disseminate that information widely to the press and public. Exh. A at 10-11.
30. The Request described examples of the ACLU’s informationdissemination function. Exh. A at 11-15.
31. The Request also included an application for a fee waiver or limitation under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and 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.” In particular, the ACLU emphasized that the Request would significantly contribute to public understanding on a matter of profound public importance about which scant specific information had been made public, i.e., how local CBP Field Offices had enforced, and continue to enforce, the Executive Orders. The Request also made clear that the ACLU plans to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of the Request to the public at no cost. Exh. A at 15-16.
32. The Request also applied for a waiver of search fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) on the grounds that Plaintiffs qualify as “representatives of the news media” and the records are not sought for commercial use, given the
16
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 21
ACLU’s non-profit mission and substantial activities to publish information for dissemination to the public, as discussed in greater detail in ¶ 30 above. Exh. A at 16-18.
33. CBP received the Request on Monday, February 6, 2017. See Exhibit B.
34. To date, CBP has not acknowledged receipt of the Request. 35. As of April 12, 2017, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) have elapsed since CBP received the Request. 36. As of the filing date of this Complaint, Defendants have not notified Plaintiffs of a determination as to whether Defendants will comply with the Request. 37. Because Defendants failed to comply with the 20-business-day time limit provision of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
17
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 21
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE
Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination Within 20 Business Days
38. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 above, inclusive.
39. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to comply with a request within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receiving the request, and also has a legal duty to immediately notify the requester of the agency’s determination and the reasons therefor.
40. Defendants’ failure to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days after receiving it violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
COUNT TWO Violation of FOIA for Failure
to Make Records Available 41. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 above, inclusive.
18
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 21
42. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency records requested on February 2, 2017 and there exists no legal basis for Defendants’ failure to make the requested records promptly available to Plaintiffs, their members, and the public.
43. Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
44. On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession, custody or control of the requested records.
COUNT THREE Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination As To
Expedited Processing Within 10 Days 45. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 above, inclusive. 46. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days after the date of the Request. 47. Defendants’ failure determine whether to provide expedited processing and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs within 10 days
19
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 20 of 21
after the date of the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
48. Because Defendants have not provided a complete response to the Request, this Court has jurisdiction under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) to review Defendants’ failure to make a determination concerning Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that the Court award them the following relief: 1. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days and by failing to immediately thereafter notify Plaintiffs of such determination and the reasons therefor; 2. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to disclose the requested records; 3. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days;
20
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 21 of 21
4. Order Defendants to immediately disclose the requested records to the public and make copies immediately available to Plaintiffs without charge for any search or duplication fees, or, in the alternative, provide for expedited proceedings to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ rights under FOIA;
5. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and 6. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of April, 2017.
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
By: /s/ Gail E. Podolsky Gail E. Podolsky Georgia Bar No. 142021 1201 West Peachtree Street Suite 3000 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-2714 (404) 815-3415 (fax) gpodolsky@carltonfields.com Attorney for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, and American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina
21
111246927.2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 19 P.O. Box 28004 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-8004 (919) 834-3390 (voice & TDD) • Fax (919) 828-3265

U.S. Customs & Border Protection 1699 Phoenix Parkway Suite 400 College Park, GA 30349

February 2, 2017

FOIA Officer U.S. Customs & Border Protection 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 3.3D Washington, D.C. 20229 Phone: (202) 344-1610
Re: Request Under Freedom of Information Act (Expedited Processing & Fee Waiver/Limitation Requested)
To Whom It May Concern:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia (together with the American Civil Liberties Union,"ACLU")1 submit this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request ("Request") for records about the implementation of President Trump's January 27, 2017 Executive Order ("Executive Order") by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States," the Executive Order halts refugee admissions and bars entrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.2 By

1 The American Civil Liberties-Union of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West

Virginia are non-profit, 50l(c)(4) membership organizations that educate the public about

the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation, provide

analysis of pending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their

members to lobby their legislators. The American Civil Libe1ties Union Foundation of

Georgia, N01th Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia are separate 50l(c)(3) organizations that provide legal representation tree of charge to individuals and organizations in civil rights and civil liberties cases, educate the public about the civil rights

I

and civil libe1ties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation,

II

provide analyses ofpending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators. They are affiliates of the ACLU.
2 Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. I, 2017).

i
I

1

I I

11
i I l
I
j

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 19

this letter, which constitutes a request pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and the relevant implementing regulations, see 6 C.F.R. § 5 et seq.,we seek information regarding CBP's local implementation ofthe Executive Order at international airports within the purview of the Atlanta Field Office ("Field Office").

I. Background

On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive

order that indefinitely blocks refugees from Syria from entering the United

States, bars all refugees for 120 days, and prohibits individuals from seven

predominantly Muslim countries-Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen-from entering the United States for 90 days.3 By the following

day, January 28, 2017, CBP officials across the country had detained an

estimated 100 to 200 individuals at airports throughout the United States,

including Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport, Charlotte Douglas

International Airport, Charleston International Airport and Yeager International Airport.4 Two unions representing more than 21,000 federal immigration officers praised the Executive Order,5 issuing a joint press

release that "applaud[ed] the three executive orders [President Trump] has issued to date. "6 Daniel M. Renaud, Associate Director of Field Operations

for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, instructed Department of

Homeland Security ("DHS") employees that they could no longer adjudicate

any immigration claims from the seven countries targeted by the Executive

Order. 7

I

3 See, e.g., Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of7 Muslim Countries, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 27, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html.

II
'·F
I

4 See, e.g., Michael D. Shear et al., Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos
and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 28, 2017, available at https://www .nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legalchallenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html; Joe Marusak, 37 Refugees Kept from Charlotte Because ofPresident Trump's Ban, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, Jan. 31, 20 I7, available at http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article129794134.html;

5 Robert Mackey, America's Deportation Agents love Trump's Ban and Rely on Breitbart for Their News, THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/americas-deportation-agents-love-trumps-ban-relybreitbart-news/.

6 Joint Press Release Between Border Patrol and ICE Councils, NAT'L ICE COUNCIL, available at http://iceunion.org/news/joint-press-release-between-border-patrol-and-icecouncils.

7 Alice Speri and Ryan Devereaux, Turmoil at DHS and State Department-"There Are People literally Ciying in the Office Here," THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/3 0/asylum-officials-and-state-department-in-turmoil-
2

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 19
Beginning Saturday morning, protests erupted nationwide and attorneys rushed to airports to assist detained individuals and their families. 8 Over the next twenty-four hours, five federal courts ordered officials to temporarily stop enforcement of the Executive Order.9 First, Judge Donnelly ofthe fatstern District of New York issued a nationwide order in Darweesh v. Trump, filed by the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project (among others), that prohibited the government from removing any detained travelers from the seven banned countries who had been legally authorized to enter the United States. 10 And a few hours later, in Tootkaboni v. Trump, filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts (among others), Judge Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Dein of the District ofMassachusetts issued a nationwide order that not only prohibited the removal of such individuals, but also temporarily banned the government from detaining people affected by the Executive Order. 11
there-are-people-literally-crying-in-the-office-here/.
8 See, e.g., Peter Baker, Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/whitehouse-official-in-reversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html; Issie Lapowsky and Andy Greenberg, Trump's Ban Leaves Refagees in Civil Liberties Limbo, WIRED, Jan. 28, 2017, available at https://www.wired.com/2017/0 l/trumps-refugee-ban-direct-assaultcivil-liberties/; Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Ben Kesling, Thousands Flood Cities' Streets to Protest Donald Trump's Immigration Ban, WALL ST. J., Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/protests-continue-against-trumps-executive-order-banningsome-from-u-s-1485735672.
9 See, e.g., Steve Vladeck, The Airport Cases: What Happened, and What's Next?, JUST SECURITY, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www.justsecurity.org/36960/stock-weekendsdistrict-court-orders-immigration-eo/.
JO Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decision-andorder. 11 Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboniv. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0l/6-TRO-Jan-29-2017.pdf. Another federal court issued an order requiring that attorneys be allowed access to all lawful permanent residents detained at Dulles International Airport and barring the government from depmiing any such individuals. See Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:l7-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0 l/TRO-order-signed.pdf. In Doe v. Trump, filed in part by the ACLU of Washington, the court banned the removal of two individuals. See Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. Cl7-126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017), available athttps://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Seattle-Order.pdf. Finally, in Vayeghan v. Trump, filed in part by the ACLU of Southern California, the court ordered the government to permit an Iranian individual who had already been removed to Dubai to return to the United States and to admit him pursuant to his approved visa. Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2017), available at
3

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 19
At the same time, President Trump remained publicly committed to his opposing position. In the early hours of Sunday, January 29, 2017, after the five court orders had been issued, President Trump tweeted, "Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW."12 He also issued a statement on Facebook later that day, indicating that entry from the seven predominantly Muslim countries would remain blocked for the next ninety days.13
In the face of nationwide confusion about the scope and validity of the Executive Order, guidance from other relevant actors offered little clarity. For example, on Saturday, DHS confirmed that the ban "will bar green card holders." 14 But on Sunday, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed "the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest"15 and, that evening, the Trump administration clarified that the Executive Order does not apply to green card holders. 16 The same day, DHS stated, perhaps contradictorily and without any elaboration, "We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. We are and will continue to enforce President Trump's executive order humanely and with professionalism."17 On Monday, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that the
https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_ -_order_re_tro. pdf. 12 DonaldJ. Trump, TW!TTER(Jan. 29, 2017 5:08 A.M.), https://twitter.com/rea!DonaldTrump/status/8256920455326187 53. 13 Donald J. Trump, Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting, Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/l 0158567643610725 ("We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.").
14 Max Greenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, THE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugeeban-bars-green-card-holders-report.
15 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry OfLawfiil Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01 /29/statement-secretaty-john-kelly-entry-lawfulpermanent-residents-united-states.
16 Robert Mackey, As Protests Escalate, Trump Retreats From Barring Green Card Holders, THE INTERCEPT, Jan, 29, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01 /29/trnmps-executive-order-no-longer-bars-green-cardholders/. 17 DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders AndThe President's Executive Order, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www .dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/dhs-statement-compliance-court-orders-andpresidents-executive-order.
4

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 19
Department of Justice would not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order unless and until she became convinced that it was lawful. 18 Shortly thereafter, Ms. Yates was relieved of her position by President Trnmp. 19 The same evening, President Trump also replaced the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").20
In spite of court orders to the contrary, some CBP officials appear to be continuing to detain individuals-though the approach appears to differ by location.21 Accordingly, we seek to supplement the public record to clarify CBP's understanding and implementation of the Executive Order at Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charleston International Airport and Yeager International Airpo1t ("Local International Airports"), and Atlanta, Charlotte and Charleston ("Port of Entry Offices"). Through this request, the ACLU aims to facilitate the public's indispensable role in checking the power of our public officials and to learn about the facts on the ground in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia and the Local International Airports.
18 Jonathan H. Adler, Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Department Attorneys Not to Defend Immigration Executive Order, WASH. POST, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/3 O/acting-attorneygeneral-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/. 19 Read the Full White House Statement on Sally Yates, BOSTON GLOBE, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/0 l/30/read-full-white-housestatement-sally-yates/HkFRe!YJidU9deDelPK6SM/story.html. 20 Statementfrom Secretmy Kelly on the President's Appointment ofThomas D. Homan as Acting ICE Director, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 30, 2017), available at https://www .dhs.gov/news/2017/01/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointmentthomas-d-homan-acting-ice-director. 21 See, e.g., Julia Wick, lawyers Say At least 17 People Are Still Detained at LAX, Protests Continue, LAIST, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://laist.com/2017/01/29/people_are_still_detained_at_lax.php; Daniel Marans, Customs and Border Officials Defy Court Order on Lawful Residents, HUFFINGTON POST, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airp01t-feds-violated-courtorder_us_588d7274e4b08a l 4f7e67bcf; Tom Cleary, Is Border Patrol Defying Federal Judge's Stay on Immigration Executive Order?, HEAVY, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://heavy.com/news/2017/0 l/border-patrol-homeland-security-defying-ignoringfollowing-judge-ruling-stay-immigration-executive-order-dulles-dfw-muslim-ban/; Tess Owen, Waiting for Answers: We Still Don't Know How Many People are Being Detained at US Airports, VICE NEWS, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://news.vice.com/story/we-stilldont-know-how-many-people-are-being-detained-at-us-airp01ts.
5

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 19

II. Requested Records

For the purposes of this Request, "Records" are collectively defined to include, but are not limited to: text communications between phones or other electronic devices (including, but not limited to, communications sent via SMS or other text, Blackberry Messenger, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Gchat, or Twitter direct message); e-mails; images, video, and audio recorded on cell phones; voicemail messages; social-media posts; instructions; directives; guidance documents; formal and informal presentations; training documents; bulletins; alerts; updates; advisories; reports; legal and policy memoranda; contracts or agreements; minutes or notes of meetings and phone calls; and memoranda of understanding. The ACLU seeks release of the following:

I.

Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP's

interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following

at Local International Airports:

a. President Trump's Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017 and titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States";

b. Any guidance "provided to DHS field personnel shortly" after
President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in CBP's online FAQ;22

c. Associate Director of Field Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Daniel M. Renaud's email, sent at 11 :12 A.M. on January 27, 2017, instructing DHS employees that they could not adjudicate any immigration claims from the seven targeted countries;23

d. Judge Donnelly's Decision and Order granting an Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Eastern District of

22 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Ent1y into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states ("The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order's signing. Guidance was provided to DHSfield personnel shortly thereafter.") (emphasis added).
23 See Alice Speri and Ryan Devereaux, Turmoil at DHS and State Department-"There Are People Literally Crying in the Office Here," THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/asylum-officials-and-state-department-in-turmoilthere-are-people-literal!y-crying-in-the-office-here/.
6

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 19
New York on January 27, 2017, including records related to CBP's efforts to comply with the court's oral order requiring prompt production of a list of all class members detained by CBP·' 24
e. Judge Brinkema's Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017;25
f. Judge Zilly's Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on January 28, 2017;26
g. Judge Burroughs' Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017;27
h. Judge Gee's Order granting an Amended Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District of California on January 29, 2017;28
i. Assurances from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at Philadelphia International Airport under the Executive Order would be admitted to the United States and released from custody on Sunday, January 29, 2017;
J. DHS's "Response to Recent Litigation" statement, issued on Januaiy 29, 2017;29
24 Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decision-andorder. 25 Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. I: 17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0 l/TRO-ordersigned. pdf. 26 Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. Cl 7-126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/0 I/Seattle-Order.pdf. 27 Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-l 0154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0l/6-TRO-Jan-29-2017 .pdf. 28 Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_-_order_re_tro.pdf. 29 Department ofHomeland Security Response to Recent Litigation, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 l7), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/depattmenthomeland-security-response-recent-litigation.
7

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 19

k. DHS Secretary John Kelly's "Statement on the Entry of Lawful
Pennanent Residents Into the United States," issued on January 29, 2017;30

I. DHS's "Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the President's Executive Order," issued on January 29, 2017;31 and

m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017.

2.

Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained

or subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an

enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local

International Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including:

a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International Airports both as of the date of this request and as of the date on which this request is processed; and

b. The total number of individuals who have been detained or subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver for any length of time at Local International Airports since January 27, 2017, including the number of individuals who have been

1. released,

ii. transfened into immigration detention, or

iii. removed from the United States;

3.

Records concerning the number of individuals who have been

removed from Local International Airports from January 27, 2017

30 Statementfrom Secretary Kelly on the President's Appointment a/Thomas D. Homan as Acting ICE Director, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 30, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/0 I/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointmentthomas-d-homan-acting-ice-director.
31 DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President's Executive Order, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/dhs-statement-compliance-court-orders-andpresidents-executive-order.
8

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 19

to date pursuant to the Executive Order;

4.

Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at

Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date with

valid visas or green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to

return; and

5.

Records containing the "guidance" that was "provided to DHS

field personnel shortly" after President Trump signed the Executive Order.32

To reiterate: The ACLU seeks information regarding CBP's interpretation and enforcement of the Executive Order at the Local International Airports, not information held in the records of CBP Headquarters. Specifically, the ACLU seeks records held by CBP employees and offices at the Local International Airports, and the corresponding Port of Entry Offices and Regional Field Operations Office. CBP has an obligation to search all such field offices that arn reasonably expected to produce any relevant information. See, e.g., Oglesby v. US. Dep 't ofArmy, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Marks v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978) (agency not required to search all of its field offices because request did not ask for a search beyond the
agency's central files); see also Am. Immigration Council v. US. Dep 't of
Homeland Sec., 950 F. Supp. 2d 221, 230 (D.D.C. 2013).

We request that searches of all electronic and paper/manual indices, filing systems, and locations for any and all records relating or referring to the subject of our Request be conducted. Given the expedited timeline on which the relevant events and interpretations occurred, this includes the personal email accounts and work phones of all employees and former employees who may have sent or received emails or text messages regarding the subject matter of this Request, as well as all institutional, shared, group, duty, task force, and all other joint and/or multi-user email accounts and work phones which may have been utilized by each such employee or former employee. Additionally, for each relevant email account identified, all storage areas must be searched, including the inbox "folder" (and all subfolders therein), sent folder, deleted folder, and all relevant archive files.

32 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Ent1y into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states ("The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time ofthe order's signing. Guidance was provided to DHSfield personnel shortly thereafter.") (emphasis added).
9

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 19
If any records responsive or potentially responsive to the Request have been destroyed, our Request includes, but is not limited to, any and all records relating or referring to the destruction of those records. This includes, but is not limited to, any and all records relating or referring to the events leading to the destruction ofthose records.
As required by the relevant case law, the agency should follow any leads it discovers during the conduct of its searches and should perform additional searches when said leads indicate that records may be located in another system. Failure to follow clear leads is a violation ofFOIA.
With respect to the form of production, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B), the ACLU requests that responsive electronic records be provided electronically in their native file format, if possible. Alternatively, the ACLU requests that the records be provided electronically in a textsearchable, static-image format (PDF), in the best image quality in the agency's possession, and that the records be provided in separate, Batesstamped files.
III. Application for Expedited Processing
The ACLU requests expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E).33 There is a "compelling need" for these records, as defined in the statute, because the information requested is "urgen[tly]" needed by an organization primarily engaged in disseminating inf01mation "to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
A. The ACLU is an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to inform the public about actual or alleged government activity.
The ACLU is "primarily engaged in disseminating information" within the meaning of the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).34 Obtaining information about government activity, analyzing that information, and widely publishing and disseminating that information to the press and public are critical and substantial components of the ACLU's work and are among its primary activities. See ACLU v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 29 n.5 (D.D.C. 2004) (finding non-profit public interest group that "gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct
33 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(J). 34 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(l)(ii).
10

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 19
work, and distributes that work to an audience" to be "primarily engaged in disseminating information").35
The national ACLU regularly publishes STAND, a print magazine that rep01is on and analyzes civil libe1iies-related current events. The magazine is disseminated to over 620,000 people. The national ACLU also publishes regular updates and ale1is via email to approximately 2.1 million subscribers (both ACLU members and non-members). These updates are additionally broadcast to 1.5 million social media followers (members and non-members). The magazine as well as the email and social-media alerts often include descriptions and analysis of information obtained through FOIA requests.
The ACLU of Georgia has more than 7500 members who subscribe to a regular newsletter; a website; a Twitter feed with 3000 followers, that can reach up to 157,000 impressions; and a Facebook page that can reach 35,000 people. The ACLU of Georgia provides Know Your Rights trainings throughout the state of Georgia. The Georgia affiliate distributes Know Your Rights materials on topics such as voting, rights in public schools, right to a language interpreter in court, rights in law enforcement encounters, and rights of protesters at its trainings, through social media, and to coalition partners. In 2012, the ACLU of Georgia published "Prisoners of Profit" which provides a detailed report of the conditions at the immigrant detention centers in Georgia. Information for the report was obtained through numerous interviews of detainees and their families, immigration attorneys, and documents produced pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests.
The ACLU ofNorth Carolina regularly publishes LIBERTY, a print newsletter that reports on and analyzes civil liberties-related current events. The newsletter is disseminated to over 15,000 people. The ACLU ofNorth Carolina also publishes regular updates and alerts via email to more than 57,000 ACLU members and supporters. These updates are additionally broadcast to more than 25,000 social media followers (members and nonmembers). The ACLU of North Carolina provides Know Your Rights trainings throughout the state of North Carolina. The ACLU ofN01ih Carolina's Legal Department has sent out various public records requests (the state equivalent of a FOIA request) to obtain information, among other issues, on police checkpoints, the use of solitary confinement in local jails
35 Courts have found that the ACLU as well as other organizations with similar missions that engage in information-dissemination activities similar to the ACLU are "primarily engaged in disseminating information." See, e.g., Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260 (D.D.C. 2005); ACLU, 321 F. Supp. 2d at 29 n.5; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. US. Dep't ofDefense, 241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 11 (D.D.C. 2003).
11

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 19
and prisons, and the use of private DNA databases for the collection and testing of DNA by local police departments.
The ACLU of South Carolina publishes a print newsletter twice a year. The newsletter repo1is on and analyzes civil liberties-related current events and is disseminated to over 2,500 people. The ACLU of South Carolina also sends regular updates and alerts via email and on social media to almost 6,000 people (members and non-members).
The ACLU of West Virginia sends out a quaiierly newsletter to over 1,500 members. The ACLU of West Virginia's legal depaiiment sends FOIA requests to state, local, and federal agencies, and recently settled a lawsuit concerning violations of the West Virginia Freedom oflnformation
Act.
The national ACLU also regularly issues press releases to call attention to documents obtained through FOIA requests, as well as other breaking news,36 and ACLU attorneys are interviewed frequently for news stories about documents released through ACLU FOIA requests.37
36 See, e.g., Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, US. Releases Drone Strike 'P/aybook' in Response to ACLU Lawsuit (Aug. 6, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/usreleases-drone-strike-playbook-response-aclu-lawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, Secret Documents Describe Graphic Abuse and Admit Mistakes (June 14, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/cia-releases-dozens-torture-documents-response-aclulawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, US. Releases Targeted Killing Memo in Response to Long-Running ACLU Lawsuit (June 23, 2014), https://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-releases-targeted-killing-memo-response-longrunning-aclu-lawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, Justice Department White Paper Details Rationale for Targeted Killing ofAmericans (Feb. 4, 2013), https://www.aclu.org/national-security/justice-department-white-paper-details-rationaletargeted-killing-americans; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, Documents Show FBI Monitored Bay Area Occupy Movement (Sept. 14, 2012), https://www.aclu.org/news/documents-show-fbi-monitored-bay-area-occupy-movementinsidebayareacom. 37 See, e.g., Karen DeYoung, Newly Declassified Document Sheds Light on How President Approves Drone Strikes, Wash. Post, Aug. 6, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/newly-declassified-documentsheds-light-on-how-president-approves-drone-strikes/2016/08/06/f424fe50-5be0- l l e683 l d-0324760ca856_sto1y.html (quoting fonner ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer); Catherine Thorbecke, What Newly Released CIA Documents Reveal About 'Torture' in Its Former Detention Program, ABC, June 15, 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/US/newly-released-cia-documents-reveal-torture-detention-
(quoting ACLU staff attorney Dror Ladin); Nicky Woolf, US Marshals Spent $1 OM on Equipmentfor Warran/less Stingray Device, Guardian, Mar. 17, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/l 7/us-marshals-stingray-surveillanceairborne (quoting ACLU attorney Nate Wessler); David Welna, Government Suspected of Wanting CIA Torture Report to Remain Secret, NPR, Dec. 9, 2015, http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026249/cia-torture-report-may-remain-secret (quoting
12

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 19
Similarly, the national ACLU publishes reports about government conduct and civil liberties issues based on its analysis of information derived from various sources, including information obtained from the government through FOIA requests. This material is broadly circulated to the public and widely available to everyone for no cost or, sometimes, for a small fee. ACLU national projects regularly publish and disseminate reports that include a description and analysis of government documents obtained through FOIA requests.38 The national ACLU as well as its affiliates in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia also regularly publish reports, "know your rights" materials, fact sheets, and educational brochures and pamphlets designed to educate the public about civil liberties issues and government policies that implicate civil rights and liberties.
The national ACLU publishes a widely-read blog where original editorial content reporting on and analyzing civil rights and civil liberties news is posted daily. See https://www.aclu.org/blog. The national ACLU creates and disseminates original editorial and educational content on civil rights and civil liberties news through multi-media projects, including videos, podcasts, and interactive features. See https://www.aclu.org/multimedia. The national ACLU also publishes, analyzes, and disseminates infonnation through its heavily visited website, www.aclu.org. The website addresses civil rights and civil liberties issues in depth, provides features on civil rights and civil liberties issues in the news, and contains many thousands of documents relating to the issues on which the ACLU is focused. The national ACLU's website also serves as a clearinghouse for news about ACLU cases, as well as analysis about case developments, and an archive of case-related documents. Through these pages, and with respect to each specific civil liberties issue, the national ACLU provides the public with educational material, recent news, analyses
ACLU project director Hina Shamsi). 38 See, e.g., ACLU, ACLU-Obtained Emails Prove that the Federal Bureau ofPrisons Covered Up Its Visit to the CIA 's Torture Site (Nov. 22, 2016, 3:15 PM), https://www.aclu.orgfblog/speak-freely/aclu-obtained-emails-prove-federal-bureau-prisonscovered-its-visit-cias-to1ture; ACLU, Details Abound in Drone 'Playbook' -Exceptfor the Ones That Really Matter Most (Aug. 8, 2016, 5:30 PM), https://www.aclu.orgfblog/speakfreely/details-abound-drone-playbook-except-ones-really-matter-most; ACLU, ACLUObtained Documents Reveal Breadth ofSecretive Stingray Use in Florida (Feb. 22, 2015, 5:30 PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadthsecretive-stingray-use-florida; ACLU, New NSA Documents Shine More Light into Black Box ofExecutive Order 12333 (Oct. 30, 2014, 3:29 PM), https://www.aclu.orgfblog/newnsa-documents-shine-more-light-black-box-executive-order-12333; ACLU, ACLU Eye on the FBI: Documents Reveal Lack ofPrivacy Safeguards and Guidance in Government's "Suspicious Activity Report" Systems (Oct. 29, 2013), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/eye_on_fbi_-_ sars.pdf.
13

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 19
ofrelevant Congressional or executive branch action, government documents obtained through FOIA requests, and further in-depth analytic and educational multi-media features. The ACLU of North Carolina's website also serves as a clearinghouse for news about North Carolina civil liberties issues and ACLU cases, providing the public with educational material, recent news, and analyses of relevant state government action.
The national ACLU website includes many features on information obtained through the FOIA.39 For example, the ACLU's "Predator Drones FOIA" webpage, https://www.aclu.org/national-security/predator-dronesfoia, contains commentary about the ACLU's FOIA request, press releases, analysis of the FOIA documents, numerous blog posts on the issue, documents related to litigation over the FOIA request, frequently asked questions about targeted killing, and links to the documents themselves. Similarly, the ACLU maintains an online "Torture Database," a compilation of over 100,000 pages ofFOIA documents that allows researchers and the public to conduct sophisticated searches of FOIA documents relating to government policies on rendition, detention, and interrogation.40
The ACLU has also published a number of charts and explanatory materials that collect, summarize, and analyze information it has obtained through the FOIA. For example, through compilation and analysis of information gathered from various sources-including information obtained from the government through FOIA requests-the ACLU created an original chart that provides the public and news media with a comprehensive summary index of Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos relating to interrogation, detention, rendition, and surveillance.41 Similarly, the ACLU produced a summary of documents released in response to a FOIA request related to the FISA Amendments Act42; a chart of original statistics about the Defense Department's use of National Security Letters based on its own
39 See, e.g., https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/fbi-releases-details-zero-day-exploit-
decisionmaking-process; https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/fbi-documents-reveal-newinformation-baltimore-surveillance-flights; https://www.aclu.org/national-security/anwaral-awlaki-foia-request; https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-department-defense; https://www.aclu.org/mappingthefbi; https://www.aclu.org/cases/bagram-foia; https://www.aclu.org/national-security/csrt-foia; http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html; https://www.aclu.org/ patriot-foia;
40 https://www.thetorturedatabase.org. See also https://www.aclu.org/foia-
collection/targeted-killing-foia-database.
41 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/safefree/olcmemos_2009_0305.pdf.
42 https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/20 I 0 l 129Summary.pdf.
14

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 19
analysis of records obtained through FOIA requests43 ; and an analysis of documents obtained through FOIA requests about FBI surveillance flights over Baltimore.44
The ACLU plans to analyze, publish, and disseminate to the public the information gathered through this Request. The records requested are not sought for commercial use and the requesters plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this Request to the public at no cost.
B. The records sought are urgently needed to inform the public about actual or alleged government activity.
These records are urgently needed to inform the public about actual or alleged government activity. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).45 Specifically, as discussed in Part I, supra, the requested records seek to inform the public about the CBP's current, local enforcement of a new Executive Order amid five court orders, varying directives, and other quickly developing events.
Given the foregoing, the ACLU has satisfied the requirements for expedited processing ofthis Request.
IV. Application for Waiver or Limitation of Fees
The ACLU requests a waiver of document search, review, and duplication fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest and because disclosure 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."
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).46 The ACLU also requests a waiver of search
fees on the grounds that the ACLU qualifies as a "representative of the news media" and the records are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
A. The Request is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthe operations or activities ofthe government and
43 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/nsl_stats.pdf. 44 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/fbi-documents-reveal-new-information-baltimoresurveillance-flights. 45 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(J)(ii). 46 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.1 l(k.).
15

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 19
is not primarily in the commercial interest ofthe ACLU
As discussed above, news accounts underscore the substantial public interest in the records sought through this Request. Given the ongoing and widespread media attention to this issue, the records sought will significantly contribute to public understanding of an issue of profound public importance. Especially because little specific information has been made public about how local CBP Field Offices plan to enforce the Executive Order while also complying with the federal court orders, the records sought are certain to contribute significantly to the public's understanding of these issues.
The ACLU is not filing this Request to further its commercial interest. As described above, any information disclosed by the ACLU as a result of this FOIA Request will be available to the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfill Congress's legislative intent in amending the 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." (quotation marks omitted)).
B. The ACLU is a representative ofthe news media and the records are not soughtfor commercial use.
The ACLU also requests a waiver of search fees on the grounds that the ACLU qualifies as a "representative of the news media" and the records are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). The ACLU meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a "representative of the news media" because it is an "entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to tum the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(III);47 see also Nat'! Sec. Archive v. US. Dep't of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (finding that an organization that gathers information, exercises editorial discretion in selecting and organizing documents, "devises indices and finding aids," and "distributes the resulting work to the public" is a "representative of the news media" for purposes of the FOIA); Serv. Women's Action Network v. US. Dep 't of Defense, 888 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D. Conn. 2012) (requesters, including ACLU, were representatives of the news media and thus qualified for fee waivers for FOIA requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs); ACLU of Wash. v. US. Dep't ofJustice, No. C090642RSL, 2011WL887731, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2011) (finding that the ACLU of Washington is an entity that "gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to tum
47 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.l l(b)(6).
16

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 19
the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience"); ACLU, 321 F. Supp. 2d at 30 n.5 (finding non-profit public interest group to be "primarily engaged in disseminating information"). The ACLU is therefore a "representative of the news media" for the same reasons it is "primarily engaged in the dissemination of information."
Furthermore, courts have found other organizations whose mission, function, publishing, and public education activities are similar in kind to the ACLU's to be "representatives of the news media" as well. See, e.g., Cause ofAction v. IRS, 125 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 241 F. Supp. 2d at 10-15 (finding non-profit public interest group that disseminated an electronic newsletter and published books was a "representative of the news media" for purposes of the FOIA); Nat'l Sec. Archive, 880 F.2d at 1387; Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep 't ofJustice, 133 F. Supp. 2d 52, 53-54 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding Judicial Watch, self-described as a "public interest law firm," a news media requester).48
On account of these factors, fees associated with responding to FOIA requests are regularly waived for the ACLU as a "representative of the news media."49 For example, the ACLU of Georgia had its fees waived by many
48 Comts have found these organizations to be "representatives of the news media" even though they engage in litigation and lobbying activities beyond their dissemination of information I public education activities. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 241 F. Supp. 2d 5; Nat'! Sec. Archive, 880 F.2d at 1387; see also Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 404 F. Supp. 2d at 260; Judicial Watch, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d at 53-54.
49 In May 2016, the FBI granted a fee-waiver request regarding a FOIA request issued to the DOJ for documents related to Countering Violent Extremism Programs. In April 2013, the National Security Division of the DOJ granted a fee-waiver request with respect to a request for documents relating to the FISA Amendments Act. Also in April 2013, the DOJ granted a fee-waiver request regarding a FOIA request for documents related to "national security letters" issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In August 2013, the FBI granted a fee-waiver request related to the same FOIA request issued to the DOJ. In June 201 I, the DOJ National Security Division granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with respect to a request for documents relating to the interpretation and implementation of a section of the PATRIOT Act. In March 2009, the State Depaitment granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with regard to a FOIA request for documents relating to the detention, interrogation, treatment, or prosecution of suspected terrorists. Likewise, in December 2008, the Depmtment of Justice granted the ACLU a fee waiver with respect to the same request. In November 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with regard to a FOIA request. In May 2005, the U.S. Depmtment of Commerce granted a fee waiver to the ACLU with respect to its request for information regarding the radio-frequency identification chips in United States passports. In Mai·ch 2005, the Department of State granted a fee waiver to the ACLU for a request regarding the use of immigration laws to exclude prominent non-citizen scholars and intellectuals from the country because of their political views, statements, or associations. In addition, the Department ofDefense did not charge the ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted by the ACLU in April 2007, June 2006, February 2006, and October 2003. The DOJ did not charge the ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted by the ACLU
17

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-2 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 19
sheriff departments that produced documents responsive to the affiliate's Open Records Request regarding the treatment of pretrial detainees who have been declared incompetent to stand trial. As was true in those instances, the ACLU meets the requirements for a fee waiver here.
* * *
Pursuant to applicable statutes and regulations, the ACLU expects a determination regarding expedited processing within 10 days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii); 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(4).
If the Request is denied in whole or in part, the ACLU asks that you justify all deletions by reference to specific FOIA exemptions. The ACLU expects the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. The ACLU reserves the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or deny a waiver of fees.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish the applicable records to:
ACLU Border Litigation Project c/o Mitra Ebadolahi P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131
I affirm that the information provided supporting the request for expedited processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(vi).
Respectfully,
Irena Como Staff Attorney (admitted in New York) ACLU ofNorth Carolina P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611
in November 2007, December 2005, and December 2004. Finally, three separate agencies-the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and the DOJ Office of Information and Privacy---did not charge the ACLU fees associated with a FOIA request submitted by the ACLU in August 2002.
18

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-3 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RWS Document 1-3 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 3

4/6/2017

Case 1:17-cv-01309-RTWracSk youDr poacckuagme oernshtip1m-e3nt wFithilFeeddEx0T4ra/c1k2in/g17 Page 3 of 3

My Profile Support Locations

English

Search or tracking number

Shipping

Tracking

Manage

Learn

FedEx Office ®

Login

FedEx ® Tracking

785490864342
Ship date: Thu 2/02/2017
RALEIGH, NC US

Delivered
Signed for by: R.GILL

Actual delivery: Mon 2/06/2017 9:56 am Washington, DC US

Travel History

Date/Time

Activity

­ 2/06/2017 ­ Monday

9:56 am

Delivered

8:31 am

On FedEx vehicle for delivery

7:20 am

At local FedEx facility

­ 2/04/2017 ­ Saturday

8:37 am

At local FedEx facility

Package not due for delivery

8:37 am

At local FedEx facility

6:26 am

At destination sort facility

3:56 am

Departed FedEx location

­ 2/03/2017 ­ Friday

8:06 am

Arrived at FedEx location

­ 2/02/2017 ­ Thursday

9:30 pm

Left FedEx origin facility

6:58 pm

Picked up

3:58 pm

Picked up

Tendered at FedEx Office

3:00 pm

Shipment information sent to FedEx

Shipment Facts
Tracking number Weight Total pieces Terms Special handling section

785490864342 0.5 lbs / 0.23 kgs 1 Third Party
Deliver Weekday

Location
Washington, DC WASHINGTON, DC WASHINGTON, DC
WASHINGTON, DC WASHINGTON, DC DULLES, VA MEMPHIS, TN
MEMPHIS, TN
RALEIGH, NC RALEIGH, NC RALEIGH, NC

Service Delivered To Total shipment weight Packaging

FedEx Express Saver Shipping/Receiving 0.5 lbs / 0.23 kgs FedEx Envelope

Standard transit

2/07/2017 by 4:30 pm

Customer Focus New Customer Center Small Business Center Service Guide Customer Support
Company Information About FedEx Careers Investor Relations Subscribe to FedEx email
© FedEx 1995­2017

Featured Services FedEx Delivery Manager FedEx SameDay FedEx Home Delivery FedEx TechConnect FedEx HealthCare Solutions Online Retail Solutions Packaging Services Ancillary Clearance Services
Other Resources FedEx Compatible Developer Resource Center FedEx Ship Manager Software FedEx Mobile

Companies FedEx Express FedEx Ground FedEx Office FedEx Freight FedEx Custom Critical FedEx Trade Networks FedEx Cross Border FedEx Supply Chain

Ask FedEx

Follow FedEx

✕ Search or tracking number
United States ­ English

Careers | Global Home | Site Map | fedex.com Terms of Use | Security and Privacy

https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?tracknumbers=785490864342

1/1

 
 CCaassee 1G:1A7N-/c1v:-1071-3c0v-90-1R3W09S DDooccuummeenntt 3285 FFiilleedd 0088//0022//1177 PPaaggee 11 ooff 55

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL No. 2786

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),1 move to centralize thirteen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions in the District of District of Columbia. The actions, which are pending in thirteen districts, are listed on the attached Schedule A.
Plaintiffs, which are various affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose centralization. If the Panel grants the Section 1407 motion over their objections, plaintiffs ask that the action in the Eastern District of Michigan be excluded, and that the litigation be centralized in the Eastern District of Virginia or, alternatively, in the District of Maine or the Western District of Washington.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny Defendants’ motion. The actions arguably share a limited number of factual issues arising out of FOIA requests made by plaintiffs for records concerning CBP’s interpretation and implementation – at local international airports and, in the Eastern District of Michigan case, U.S./Canada border crossings – of the January 27, 2017, Executive Order No. 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” as well as any judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order. But these factual issues, which principally concern the adequacy of CBP’s searches for the requested records, as well as CBP’s coordination of the searches by its Washington, D.C., headquarters, appear relatively straightforward and unlikely to entail extensive pretrial proceedings. See Riccardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 32 F. Supp. 3d 59, 63 (D.D.C. 2014) (“In a FOIA case, where the adequacy of an agency’s search is questioned, the Court may grant summary judgment based on information provided in ‘[a] reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched.’”) (quoting Valencia–Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir.1999)). Indeed, as Defendants acknowledge, these actions probably will not involve any discovery. See Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. for Transfer, at 16 n.8 (ECF No. 1-1)
* Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
1 CBP is a component of DHS.

CCaassee 1G:1A7N-/c1v:-1071-3c0v-90-1R3W09S DDooccuummeenntt 3285 FFiilleedd 0088//0022//1177 PPaaggee 22 ooff 55
-2-
(“In the unlikely event that discovery is authorized in these Related Actions, Defendants anticipate that CBP witnesses would be located in Washington, DC, while Plaintiffs would not have any witnesses of their own.”); see also, e.g., Justice v. I.R.S., 798 F. Supp. 2d 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting that in FOIA actions, discovery is “disfavored”).2
Defendants also contend that common factual questions will inform any review of CBP’s determinations to withhold information from disclosure pursuant to FOIA’s statutory exemptions. This argument is unconvincing, because the application of those exemptions is a legal issue. See, e.g., Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1226 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Whether a FOIA exemption justifies withholding a record is a question of law that we review de novo.”); see also Am. Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of the Army, 703 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2013) (same).
Although defendants heavily rely on the Panel’s 1992 decision in MDL No. 910, In re: Freedom Magazine/Internal Revenue Service FOIA Litigation, and its 1991 decision in MDL No. 892, In re: Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization/Internal Revenue Service FOIA Litigation, those decisions are in at least some tension with more recent Panel precedent. E.g., In re: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 140 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1341 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (denying federal government defendants’ motion for centralization of nine actions pending in seven districts involving challenges to EPA rule, where resolution of the actions would “involve only very limited pretrial proceedings,” and discovery, if any, would be “minimal”). Moreover, the decisions are distinguishable. In Freedom Magazine, the eight cases were filed by a single plaintiff, which specifically sought records located at the IRS’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. See Freedom Magazine Transfer Order at 2 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 12, 1992) (unpublished). And, in Church of Scientology, “every FOIA request in the litigation was made upon the IRS office in Jacksonville in [the Middle District of Florida, where the cases were centralized],” and related litigation was pending in that district. See Church of Scientology Transfer Order at 2 (J.P.M.L.. Sept. 4, 1991) (unpublished). Here, the actions are brought by separate plaintiffs (albeit all ACLU affiliates), and each FOIA request targets a different CBP field office.
Defendants also argue that centralization would reduce litigation costs. They represent, without contradiction, that it was unnecessary for the ACLU plaintiffs to submit a separate FOIA request for each CBP field office, and that the national ACLU, or the various affiliates acting together, simply could have sent CBP headquarters a single FOIA request asking the agency to search the same field offices for the same records covered by the multiple requests. But, the potential for litigation cost savings, without more, does not warrant centralization, particularly where, as here, there is little likelihood of complex pretrial proceedings.
2 In the unlikely event that these cases actually involve a significant amount of duplicative pretrial discovery, Defendants are free to file another motion for centralization.

CCaassee 1G:1A7N-/c1v:-1071-3c0v-90-1R3W09S DDooccuummeenntt 3285 FFiilleedd 0088//0022//1177 PPaaggee 33 ooff 55
-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance Chair

Charles R. Breyer Ellen Segal Huvelle Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan R. David Proctor

CCaassee 1G:1A7N-/c1v:-1071-3c0v-90-1R3W09S DDooccuummeenntt 3285 FFiilleedd 0088//0022//1177 PPaaggee 44 ooff 55

IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL No. 2786

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ARIZONA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01083
Central District of California
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02778
Northern District of California
ACLU OF HAWAI'I, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, C.A. No. 4:17-01970
Southern District of California
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00733
Southern District of Florida
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-21382
Northern District of Georgia
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA, INC., ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-01309
Northern District of Illinois
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-02768

CCaassee 1G:1A7N-/c1v:-1071-3c0v-90-1R3W09S DDooccuummeenntt 3285 FFiilleedd 0088//0022//1177 PPaaggee 55 ooff 55
- A2 -
MDL No. 2786 Schedule A (Continued) District of Maine
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE, ET AL. v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00132 Eastern District of Michigan
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-11149 District of Oregon
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OREGON, INC., ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00575 Southern District of Texas
ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17-01128 Eastern District of Virginia
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00441 Western District of Washington
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00562

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01309-WMR Document 56 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF GEORGIA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01309-WMR

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and

through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this case with

prejudice.

Dated: July 30, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gail E. Podolsky Gail E. Podolsky Georgia Bar No. 142021 Carlton Fields, P.A. 1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 3000 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 815-2714 (404) 815-3415 (fax) gpodolsky@carltonfields.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:17-cv-01309-WMR Document 56 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 2
/s/ Rachael L. Westmoreland JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director RACHAEL L. WESTMORELAND (GA Bar #539498) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Tel.: (202) 514-1280 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: rachael.westmoreland@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants
2
119035187.1

 
 U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-01309-WMR

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc. et al v. Date Filed: 04/12/2017

U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

Date Terminated: 07/31/2019

Assigned to: Judge William M. Ray, II

Jury Demand: None

Cause: 05:0552 Freedom of Information Act

Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of

Information Act

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government

Defendant

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc.

represented by Gail Podolsky Carlton Fields - Atlanta One Atlantic Center, Suite 3000 1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 404-815-3400 Fax: 404-815-3415 Email: gpodolsky@carltonfields.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Barret Broussard Clyde & Co LLP 271 17th St. Ste. 1720 Atlanta, GA 30363 404-410-3150 Fax: 404-410-3151 Email: Barret.Broussard@clydeco.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Young ACLU of Georgia Foundation 1100 Spring St. NW Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30309 770-303-8111 Fax: 770-303-0060

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc.
Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc.
Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.

Email: syoung@acluga.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gail Podolsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Barret Broussard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gail Podolsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Barret Broussard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gail Podolsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Barret Broussard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Lisa D. Cooper Office of the United States Attorney-ATL600 Northern District of Georgia 600 United States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner Dr., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 404-581-6249 Email: lisa.cooper@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachael Westmoreland U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-1280 Email: rachael.westmoreland@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily B. Nestler United States Departement of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8489 Email: enestler@reprorights.org TERMINATED: 04/05/2018
Matthew J. Berns United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-8016 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/27/2017

Defendant
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

represented by Lisa D. Cooper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachael Westmoreland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily B. Nestler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/05/2018
Matthew J. Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/27/2017

Date Filed 04/12/2017
04/12/2017 04/13/2017 04/13/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 113E7084219.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(bnw) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. (Entered: 04/12/2017)
2 Electronic Summons Issued as to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Summons U.S. Department of Homeland Security)(bnw) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
Notification of Docket Correction: Judge Duffey entered on case in error, case assigned to Jude Story (aar) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
3 Certificate of Interested Persons by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017 4 Court Notice Of Filing: Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation by Judge Richard W. Story. (sk) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

05/08/2017

5 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J. Berns on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017

6 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Motion filed with the JPML to Transfer Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Transfer Motion, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Supporting Memorandum, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Schedule of Actions)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/10/2017

7 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint with Brief In Support by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/11/2017

8 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to 1 Complaint. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Answer due 7/1/2017; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Answer due 7/1/2017. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 5/11/2017. (bdb) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/12/2017

9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer with Brief In Support by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/23/2017

10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer re: 9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/24/2017

11 ORDER granting 10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to Respond to 9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer to 6/9/2017. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 5/24/2017. (bdb) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

06/06/2017 12 NOTICE Of Filing by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of JPML Reply Brief (Attachments: # 1 JPML Reply Brief)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/09/2017

13 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017

14 NOTICE Of Filing by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. of Memorandum in Opposition filed with the JPML (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/12/2017

15 NOTICE Of Filing by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. re 13 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit A (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/23/2017

16 REPLY BRIEF re 9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/23/2017)

06/26/2017

Submission of 9 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer. Submitted to District Judge Richard W. Story. (bdb) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/26/2017

17 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Two Recent Decisions Granting Defendants' Stay Motions (Attachments: # 1 Eastern District of Virginia Opinion)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

06/28/2017

18 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Recent Decision Granting Defendants' Stay Motion (Attachments: # 1 Northern District of Illinois Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/29/2017

19 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERRORNOTICE by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. of Decisions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Podolsky, Gail) Modified on 6/29/2017 per telephone call from counsel. Attorney will re-file. (fem). (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

20 NOTICE by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. of Decisions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

21 NOTICE by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security of Recent Decision in Related Case (Attachments: # 1 Southern District of Florida Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/30/2017

22 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint with Brief In Support by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

06/30/2017 23 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay and denying as moot 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 06/30/2017. (sek) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/31/2017

24 NOTICE of Appearance by Sean Young on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. (Young, Sean) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

08/02/2017

25 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER of MDL Panel (No. 2786) re: MOTION for Centralization of actions is denied. Signed by Multidistrict Litigation Chair, Sarah S. Vance. (bdb) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/07/2017

26 ORDER LIFTING STAY. On August 2, 2017, the JPML issued an order denying transfer of this action. Defendants are ORDERED to file their response to the Complaint not later than August 22, 2017. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 08/07/2017. (rsg) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017

Set Answer Deadline: U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security answer due 8/22/2017. (rsg) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/22/2017

27 ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Discovery ends on 1/19/2018.(Berns, Matthew) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/29/2017 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily B. Nestler on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

09/20/2017

29 JOINT PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

10/04/2017

30 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court has reviewed the 29 Joint Preliminary Report filed by the parties. The parties are ORDERED submit a joint status report by October 27, 2017. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 10/04/2017. (rsg) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/27/2017

31 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time file Joint Status Report by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 10/27/2017)

10/30/2017

32 ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall have through and including October 31, 2017 to file the Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 10/30/2017. (dgr) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

10/31/2017

33 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file Joint Status Report by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 10/31/2017)

11/01/2017

34 ORDER granting 33 Motion for Extension of Time. The Parties shall have through and including November 3, 2017, to file the Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/01/2017. (dgr) (Entered: 11/01/2017)

11/03/2017

35 STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/08/2017

36 ORDER: The Court will permit Defendants to proceed with the review and production as they propose. The parties should communicate in good faith to address concerns raised by Plaintiffs. Also, the Court will be willing to revisit Plaintiffs objections should the production be

inadequate. Defendants shall submit a proposed schedule within 14 days, and Plaintiffs may file a response within 14 days thereafter. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/07/2017. (dgr) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/21/2017 37 PROPOSED ORDER Defendants' Proposed Production Schedule re: 36 Order,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of Patrick Howard)(Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

12/05/2017

38 RESPONSE re 37 Proposed Order in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Production Schedule filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/13/2017

39 ORDER: The Court, therefore, finds Defendants Proposed Production Schedule 37 inadequate. Instead, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. By no later than January 16, 2018, Defendants shall process no less than 1,000 pages of the records identified as potentially responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request and (i) produce to Plaintiff all responsive, nonexemptrecords identified in this review and (ii) identify any asserted exemptions. 2. Each month thereafter, Defendants shall repeat this process, processing no less than 1,000 pages of the records identified as potentially responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request and, by the 16th of each month, (i)produce to Plaintiff all responsive, non-exempt records identified in this review and (ii) identify any asserted exemptions. 3. By no later than June 17, 2018, Defendants shall have fully responded to Plaintiffs request, having reviewed all records identified as potentially responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request and (i) produced to Plaintiffall responsive, non-exempt records identified and (ii) identified any asserted exemptions. 4. By June 17, 2018, the Parties shall submit a joint status report and proposed case schedule to the Court, addressing: (i) the status of Defendants response to Plaintiffs FOIA request; and (ii) a proposed briefing schedule for dispositive motions, if appropriate. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 12/13/2017. (rsg) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

12/26/2017

40 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Certificate of Consent to Withdraw as Counsel by Matthew J. Berns on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 12/26/2017)

02/12/2018

41 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time for February Record Release by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/13/2018

42 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time for February Record Release. Defendants' February record release shall be enlarged through and including February 27, 2018. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 02/13/2018. (rsg) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

04/04/2018 43 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachael Westmoreland on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Westmoreland, Rachael) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/05/2018

44 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Consent to Emily Nestler's Withdrawal by Rachael Westmoreland on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Westmoreland, Rachael) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

06/15/2018

45 STATUS REPORT by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Westmoreland, Rachael) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/18/2018

46 ORDER: The parties propose that they be permitted to follow this course and submit another joint status report in 90 days. The parties request is granted. They shall submit another status report in 90 days, setting forth a briefing schedule should motions be required. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 06/18/2018. (dgr) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

09/14/2018

47 STATUS REPORT by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 09/14/2018)

09/17/2018

48 ORDER: On September 14, 2018, the parties submitted their Joint Status Report 47 to the Court. After reviewing the Report, the Court enters the following Order. The parties are making good faith efforts to discuss Defendants' production and to resolve the case without motions practice. The parties propose that they be permitted to follow this course and submit another joint status report in 60 days. The parties' request is granted. They shall submit another status report in 60 days, setting forth a briefing schedule should motions be required. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 09/17/2018. (dgr) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

10/30/2018

Case Reassigned to Judge William M Ray, II. Judge Richard W. Story no longer assigned to case. NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Judge designation in the civil action number assigned to this case has been changed to 1:17-cv-01309-WMR. Please make note of this change in order to facilitate the docketing of pleadings in this case. (dgr) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

11/16/2018 49 JOINT STATUS REPORT by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Westmoreland, Rachael) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

12/04/2018

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 1/31/2019 at 1:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 1705 before Judge William M Ray II re 49 JOINT STATUS REPORT. (jkl) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/26/2018

50 Administrative Order Staying Civil Proceedings in Light of Lapse Appropriations. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 12/26/18.(aaq) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

01/28/2019

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION of Hearing re: NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 1/31/2019 at 1:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 1705 before Judge William M Ray II re 49 JOINT STATUS REPORT. A new date will be set. (jkl) (jkl) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference RESET for 2/13/2019 at 12:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 1705 before Judge William M Ray II. (jkl) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

02/13/2019

51 NOTICE of Appearance by David Barret Broussard on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc. (Broussard, David) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/13/2019

52 ORDER that this case shall be terminated and all claims dismissed on June 1, 2019, unless either the Plaintiffs or Defendants notify the Court prior to that time that they object to the dismissal and that there remain other matters for resolution. Signed by Judge William M Ray, II on 2/13/19. (jpa) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/13/2019

53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William M Ray, II: Status Conference held on 2/13/2019. Parties updated the Court as to the status of document production and the thirteen parallel cases across the country. Both parties agreed there were no substantive issues requiring summary judgment briefing. The Court ordered that if no motions are filed by either party by June 1, 2019, the case would be dismissed, absent prior notice from the parties requesting an extension. Defendant anticipates if settlement is reached, it would be well in advance of that date. A written order will follow. (Court Reporter Wynette Blathers)(rlb) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

05/29/2019 54 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Date of Dismissal by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union

of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

06/04/2019

55 ORDER granting 54 Joint Motion to Extend Date of Dismissal. Parties shall have until Tuesday, July 30, 2019, to notify the Court of any outstanding issues, and delay any dismissal of this case to Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at the earliest. Signed by Judge William M Ray, II on 6/4/19. (rlb) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

07/30/2019

56 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Inc.. (Podolsky, Gail) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

07/31/2019

Clerk's Entry of Dismissal APPROVING 56 Stipulation of Dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (rlb) (Entered: 07/31/2019)

07/31/2019

Civil Case Terminated. (rlb) (Entered: 07/31/2019)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

08/19/2020 10:42:26

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

1:17-cv-01309WMR
0.80