Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

10 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON; AMERICAN CIVIL
11 LIBERTIES UNION OF MONTANA; and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
12 NORTH DAKOTA,
Plaintiffs, 13
v. 14
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, 16
Defendants. 17

No. ______________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

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

20 Union of Montana, and American Civil Liberties Union ofNorth Dakota (collectively,

21 "Plaintiffs" or "ACLU") bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),

22 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., as amended, to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring

23 Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and U.S. Customs and Border

24 Protection ("CBP") (collectively, "Defendants") to respond to a FOIA request sent by Plaintiffs

25 on February 2, 2017 ("Request"), and to promptly disclose the requested records.

26

2. The Request seeks records concerning CBP's local implementation of President

27 Trump's January 27, 2017, Executive Order titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign

FOIA COMPLAINT - 1
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main· 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 35

1 Terrorist Entry Into the United States," Exec. Order No. 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1,

2 2017) ("Executive Order No. 1"),as well as any other judicial order or executive directive

3 issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump's March 6, 2017 Executive

4 Order, identically titled, Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017)

5 ("Executive Order No.2") (collectively, "Executive Orders"). A true and correct copy of the

6 Request is attached as Exhibit A.

7

3. Specifically, the Request seeks records concerning CBP's local implementation

8 of the Executive Orders at sites within the purview of CBP' s Seattle Field Office. These

9 include Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ("Sea-Tac Airport") and Fargo-Hector

10 International Airport ("Local International Airports") and the Seattle and Fargo-Hector

11 International Airport ports of entry ("Ports of Entry").

12

4. Among other things, the Executive Orders purport to halt refugee admissions

13 and bar entrants from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

14

5. Defendants' implementation of the Executive Orders has been the subject of

15 significant public concern, as reflected by mass protests around the country, substantial news

16 coverage, and numerous lawsuits filed following the President's signing of each Executive

17 Order.

18

6. Over the weekend of January 27-29, 2017, at least five lawsuits resulted in

19 emergency court orders enjoining implementation of various sections of Executive Order No. 20 1. 1 On March 15,2017, a district court enjoined implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of 21 Executive Order No. 2.2

22

7. News reports described Defendants' implementation of the Executive Orders as

23 "chaotic" and "total[ly] lack[ing] ... clarity and direction."3

24
1 Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126, 2017 WL 388532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017); Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. CV 17-
25 0702,2017 WL 396531 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017); Tootkaboniv. Trump, No. 17-CV-10154, 2017 WL 386550 (D.
Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-CV-116, 2017 WL 386549 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017); Darweesh v.
26 Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017).
2 Hawai'iv. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).
27 3 See, e.g., Ryan Devereaux eta!., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation ofMuslim Ban,
Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at

FOIA COMPLAINT- 2
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 35

1

8. to Official DHS statements reflected this confusion. For example, DHS stated

2 on January 28 that Executive Order No. 1 would "bar green card holders."4 The next day,

3 however, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed "the entry oflawful permanent residents to be in 4 the national interest"5 and the government clarified that Executive Order No. 1 did not apply to 5 green card holders. 6

6

9. Reportedly spurred by this chaos, on January 29, Senators Tammy Duckworth

7 and Dick Durbin called upon the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of 8 Homeland Security to investigate Defendants' implementation of Executive Order No. 1.7

9 The Senators specifically sought information regarding: any guidance Defendants provided to

10 the White House in developing the order; any directions that were provided to Defendants in

11 implementing it; whether CBP officers complied with the relevant court orders; and whether

12 DHS and CBP officers kept a list of individuals that they had detained at ports of entry under

13 the order. In response, the Inspector General directed Defendants' personnel to preserve all

14 records "that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating to the 15 implementation of' Executive Order No. 1.8

16

10. The public interest in the requested records is particularly profound. Among

17 other things, at Sea-Tac Airport, CBP officials- apparently relying on their interpretation of

18 Executive Order No.1- detained at least six arriving passengers, some of whom were refused

19

20
https://theintercept.com/20 17/02/0 1!homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-
21 rollout-orders-document-preservation/.
4 See Max Greenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, THE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available
22 at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-ban-bars-green-card-holders-report.
5 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry OfLawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP'T
23 OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1/29/statement-secretary-
john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states.
24 6 See Robert Mackey, As Protests Escalate, Trump Retreats From Barring Green Card Holders, THE INTERCEPT,
Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/20 17/0 1/29/trumps-executive-order-no-longer-bars-green-card-
25 holders/.
7 See Ryan Devereaux eta!., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation ofMuslim Ban, Orders
26 Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at
https://theintercept.com/20 17/02/01!homeland-security-inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-
27 rollout-orders-document-preservation/.
8 Jd.

FOIA COMPLAINT- 3
483 7-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main· 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 35

1 entry to the United States.9 When word of the detentions spread, some 1,000 demonstrators 2 arrived at Sea-Tac Airport to protest. 10 Implementation of the order was so chaotic that elected 3 officials- including Washington's governor, members of the state's congressional delegation, 4 and a Port of Seattle Commissioner -literally pursued regional CBP staff at Sea-Tac Airport in 5 a largely futile attempt to obtain basic information about their actions. 11 More generally, Sea6 Tac Airport ranks as the ninth busiest airport nationally and fortieth busiest globally based on 7 total passengers. In 2016, 45.7 million passengers arrived at Sea-Tac Airport, including 8 4,380,346 international arrivals on 22 non-stop routes from Dubai, eastern Asia, Europe, 9 Mexico and Canada. 12

10

11. Disclosure of the records Plaintiffs seek through this action would facilitate the

11 public's understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders in

12 the Seattle Field Office, including in particular at Sea-Tac Airport. Such information is critical

13 to the public's ability to hold the government accountable.

14

12. This action is necessary because Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs

15 with a determination as to whether they will comply with the Request, although more than 20

16 business days have elapsed since Defendants received the Request.

17

JURISDICTION

18

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

19 jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and 28 U.S.C.

20 §1331.

21

22 9 Seattle Times Staff, Legal questions surround Trump's immigration order; protests to continue tonight, SEATTLE
TIMES, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/live-updates-protestd-and-arrests-at-
23 sea-tac-following-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration/ (noting six travelers detained at Sea-Tac Airport).
10 Bob Young and Tyrone Beason, Inslee and other officials denounce immigrant ban 'train wreck,' SEATTLE
24 TIMES, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/at-sea-tac-inslee-and-other-officials-
denounce-immigrant-ban-train-wreck/.
25 11 Heidi Groover, As the Feds Detained Banned Travelers at Sea-Tac, Local Political Leaders Were Given
Virtually No Info About What Was Going On, THE STRANGER, Jan. 30, 2017, available at
26 http://www.thestranger.com/slog/20 17/01/3 0/2483 3676/as-the-feds-detained-banned-travelers-at-sea-tac-local-
political-leaders-were-given-virtually-no-info-about-what-was-going-on.
27 12 Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Port of Seattle News Room, available at
https://www.portseattle. org/Newsroom/Fast-Facts/Pages/Airport-Basics.aspx.

FOIA COMPLAINT- 4
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 35

VENUE 1
14. Venue in this court is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) as the requested
2
agency records are, upon information and belief, situated within this District at CBP facilities in
3 or near Seattle and because Plaintiff ACLU of Washington's principal place of business is in
4 Seattle. For the same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
5 15. Assignment to the Seattle Division is proper under LCR 3(d) because the events
6 and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in King County, Washington.
7
PARTIES 8
16. Plaintiffs are non-profit, 501 (c)(4) membership organizations that educate the 9
public about the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal
10 legislation, provide analysis of pending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and
11 mobilize their members to lobby their legislators.
12 17. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a department of the executive
13 branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(±)(1).
14 18. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component ofDHS and is a
15 federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(±)(1).
16 19. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore believe that Defendants have possession,
17 custody, or control of the requested records.
18
FACTS 19
20. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs sent the Request to CBP's Seattle Field Office 20
and CBP's FOIA Officer at CBP Headquarters via certified, trackable mail, with tracking
21 numbers ofEK649562762US and EK649562776US, respectively.
22
21. The Request sought copies ofCBP's local interpretation and enforcement ofthe 23
Executive Order at: 1) certain airports specified in the Request, including Seattle-Tacoma 24
International Airport and Fargo-Hector International Airport in Fargo, ND ("Local 25
International Airports"); and 2) certain Port of Entry offices specified in the Request, including 26
27

FOIA COMPLAINT - 5
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 35

1 the Seattle and Fargo-Hector International Airport ports of entry ("Port of Entry Offices"). The

2 Request expressly did not seek information held in the records of CBP Headquarters.

3

22. Specifically, the Request sought the following:

4

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

5

interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at

6

Local International Airports:

7

a.

President Trump's Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017

8

and titled 'Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry

9

Into the United States';

10

b. Any guidance 'provided to DHS field personnel shortly' after

11

President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in

12

CBP's online FAQ; 13

13

c.

Associate Director of Field Operations for U.S. Citizenship and

14

Immigration Services Daniel M. Renaud's email, sent at 11:12

15

A.M. on January 27, 2017, instructing DHS employees that they

16

could not adjudicate any immigration claims from the seven

17

targeted countries; 14

18

d. Judge Donnelly's Decision and Order granting an Emergency

19

Motion for Stay of Removal, issued in the Eastern District of

20

New York on January 28, 2017, including records related to

21

CBP's efforts to comply with the court's oral order requiring

22

23
13 To assist CBP in responding, the Request included the following information in a footnote for reference:
24 "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-
25 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)."
26 14 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,
27 available at https://theintercept.com/20 17/0 1/30/asylum-officials-and-state-department-in-turmoi1-there-are-
peop1e-literally-crying-in-the-office-here/."

FOIA COMPLAINT- 6
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 35

1

prompt production of a list of all class members detained by

2

CBP; 15

3

e.

Judge Brinkema's Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the

4

Eastern District ofVirginia on January 28, 2017; 16

5

f.

Judge Zilly's Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of

6

Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on

7

January 28, 2017; 17

8

g.

Judge Burroughs' Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the

9

District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017; 18

10

h. Judge Gee's Order granting an Amended Ex Parte Application

11

for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District of

12

California on January 29, 2017; 19

13

1.

Assurances from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern

14

District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at

15

Philadelphia International Airport under the Executive Order

16

would be admitted to the United States and released from custody

17

on Sunday, January 29, 2017;

18

J.

DHS's 'Response to Recent Litigation' statement, issued on

19

January 29, 2017;20

20

21 15 The following footnote was included for reference: "Decision and Order, Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 480

22

(AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/darweesh-v-trump-decisionand-order."

16 The following footnote was included for reference: "Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-
23 116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 20 17), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/20 17/0 1/TRO-order-

signed.pdf."

24 17 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

25 https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/20 17/0 1/Seattle-Order.pdf."
18 The following footnote was included for reference: "Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No.

26 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available athttps://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6-TRO-Jan-29-

2017.pdf."

27 19 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."

FOIA COMPLAINT- 7
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 35

1

k. DHS Secretary John Kelly's 'Statement on the Entry of Lawful

2

Permanent Residents Into the United States,' issued on January

3

29,

20

11;

e

1 ]

4

1.

DRS's 'Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the

5

President's Executive Order,' issued on January 29, 2017;22 and

6

m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding

7

the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017.

8

2. Records concerning the number of individuals who were detained or

9

subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement

10

examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International

11

Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including:

12

a.

The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject

13

to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement

14

examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International

15

Airports both as of the date of this request and as of the date on

16

which this request is processed; and

17

b. The total number of individuals who have been detained or

18

subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an

19

enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver for any

20

length of time at Local International Airports since January 27,

21

2017, including the number of individuals who have been

22

23 20 The following footnote was included for reference: "Department ofHomeland Security Response to Recent
Litigation, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at
24 https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation."
21 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry OfLawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP'T
25 OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1129/statement-secretary-
john-kelly-entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states.
26
22 The following footnote was included for reference: "DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And
27 The President's Executive Order, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at
https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1/29/dhs-statement-compliance-court-orders-and-presidents-executive-order."

FOIA COMPLAINT- 8
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main· 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 35

1

1.

released,

2

ii. transferred into immigration detention, or

3

111. removed from the United States;

4

3. Records concerning the number of individuals who have been removed

5

from Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date pursuant

6

to the Executive Order;

7

4. Records concerning the number of individuals who arrived at Local

8

International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date with valid visas or

9

green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return; and

10

5. Records containing the 'guidance' that was 'provided to DHS field

11

personnel shortly' after President Trump signed the Executive Order."23

12 Exh. A at pp. 5-8.

13

23. The Request included an application for expedited processing, on the grounds

14 that there is a "compelling need" for these records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because

15 the information requested is "urgen[tly]" needed by an organization primarily engaged in

16 disseminating information "to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal

17 Government activity." Exh. A at p. 9.

18

24. The Request provided detail showing that the ACLU is primarily engaged in

19 disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given that a

20 critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU's mission is to obtain information about

21 government activity, analyze that information, and publish and disseminate that information

22 widely to the press and public. Exh. A at pp. 9-13.

23

25. The Request described examples of the ACLU's information-dissemination

24 function. Exh. A at pp. 9-13.

25
23 The following footnote was included for reference: "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
26 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
27 were effective at the time of the order's signing. Guidance was provided to DHSfield personnel shortly
thereafter.') (emphasis added)."

FOIA COMPLAINT- 9
4837-65 88-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 35

1

26. The Request also included an application for a fee waiver or limitation under 5

2 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) on the grounds that disclosure ofthe requested records is in the

3 public interest and is "likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the

4 operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the

5 requester." In particular, the ACLU emphasized that the Request would significantly

6 contribute to public understanding on a matter of profound public importance about which

7 scant specific information had been made public, i.e., how local CBP Field Offices had

8 enforced, and continue to enforce, the Executive Orders. The Request also made clear that the

9 ACLU plans to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of the Request to the public at

10 no cost. Exh. A at pp. 13-14.

11

27. The Request also applied for a waiver of search fees under 5 U.S.C.

12 § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) on the grounds that Plaintiffs qualify as "representatives of the news

13 media" and the records are not sought for commercial use, given the ACLU's non-profit

14 mission and substantial activities to publish information for dissemination to the public, as

15 discussed in greater detail in~ 25 above. Exh. A at p. 14.

16

28. CBP received the Request on February 7, 2017. See Exhibit B.

17

29. CBP acknowledged receipt of the Request on February 10, 2017. A true and

18 correct copy ofthe CBP's acknowledgement of receipt is attached as Exhibit C. The

19 acknowledgement of receipt did not acknowledge ACLU's fee waiver request, but instead

20 asserted a "right to recover part of the cost of complying with your request." The

21 acknowledgment also did not acknowledge ACLU'srequest for expedited processing. See

22 Exh.C.

23

30. In its acknowledgement of receipt, CBP did not provide a determination as to

24 whether, or when, CBP will comply with the Request, stating only that "the average time to

25 process a FOIA request related to 'travel/border incidents' is a minimum of 6 months." See

26 Exh. C.

27

FOIA COMPLAINT -10
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 35

1

31. As of the filing date of this Complaint, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays,

2 Sundays, and legal public holidays) have elapsed since CBP and DHS received the Request.

3

32. As of the filing date of this Complaint, Defendants have not notified Plaintiffs of

4 a determination as to whether Defendants will comply with the Request.

5

33. Because Defendants failed to comply with the 20-business-day time limit

6 provision ofFOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their

7 administrative remedies with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

8

VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE

TO PROVIDE A DETERMINATION

9

WITHIN 20 BUSINESS DAYS

10

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

11 33 above, inclusive.

12

35. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to comply with

13 a request within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after

14 receiving the request, and also have a legal duty to immediately notify a requester of the

15 agency's determination and the reasons therefor.

16

36. Defendants' failure to determine whether to comply with the Request within 20

17 business days after receiving it violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and applicable

18 regulations promulgated thereunder.

19

VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE

TO MAKE RECORDS AVAILABLE

20

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

21 33 above, inclusive.

22 38. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency records

23 requested on February 2, 2017, and there exists no legal basis for Defendants' failure to

24 promptly make the requested records available to Plaintiffs, their members, and the public.

25

26

27

FOIA COMPLAINT- 11
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 35

1

39. Defendants' failure to promptly make available the records sought by the

2 Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and applicable regulations promulgated

3 thereunder.

4

40. On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession, custody or

5 control of the requested records.

6

VIOLATION OF FOIA FOR FAILURE TO

PROVIDE A DETERMINATION AS TO

7

EXPEDITED PROCESSING WITHIN 10 DAYS

8

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

9 33 above, inclusive.

10

42. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to provide

11 expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within 10 days

12 after the date of the Request.

13

43. Defendants' failure to determine whether to provide expedited processing and to

14 provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs within 10 days after the date of the Request

15 violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and applicable regulations promulgated

16 thereunder.

17

44. Because Defendants have not provided a complete response to the Request, this

18 Court has jurisdiction under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) to review Defendants' failure to

19 make a determination concerning Plaintiffs' request for expedited processing.

20

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

21

1. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to

22 comply with the Request within 20 business days and by failing to immediately thereafter

23 notify Plaintiffs of such determination and the reasons therefor;

24

2. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by unlawfully withholding the requested

25 records;

26

27

FOIA COMPLAINT- 12
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 35

1

3. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine whether to

2 provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs, within

3 10 days;

4

4. Order Defendants to immediately disclose the requested records to the public

5 and make copies immediately available to Plaintiffs without charge for any search or

6 duplication fees, or, in the alternative, provide for expedited proceedings to adjudicate

7 Plaintiffs' rights under FOIA;

8

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

9

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

10

DATED this 1th day of April, 2017.

11

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

12

By Is/Eric M Stahl

13

Eric M. Stahl

WSBA#27619

14

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101-3045

15

Telephone: 206.757.8148

Fax: 206.757.7148

16

E-mail: ericstahl@dwt.com

17

Emily Chiang

WSBA #50517

18

American Civil Liberties Union of

Washington Foundation

19

901 Fifth Avenue, #630

Seattle, WA 98164

20

E-mail: echiang@aclu-wa.org

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

22

OF WASHINGTON, AMERICAN CIVIL

LIBERTIES UNION OF MONTANA and

23

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTH DAKOTA

24

25

26

27

FOIA COMPLAINT- 13
4837-6588-4486v.4 0200495-000009

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW OFFICES 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045 206.622.3150 main· 206.757.7700 fax

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 35
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 35

EMILY CHIANG LEGAL DIRECTOR
NAN.CY TALNER SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
I..A RONO BAKER PRACHIOAVE STAFF ATTORNEYS
MARGARET CHEN FLOYD AND DELORES JONES FAMILY STAFF ATTORNEY
JESSICA WOLFE EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS FELLOW

I
February 2, 2017
U.S. Customs & Border Protection 1000 2nd Ave, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104
FOIA Officer U.S. Customs & Border Protection 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 3.3D Washington, D.C. 20229 Phone: (202) 344-1610

AMERICAN CIVIl LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 T/206.624.2184 F/206.624.2190 WWW.ACLU-WA.ORG
JEAN ROBINSON BOARD PRESIDENT
KATHLEEN TAYLOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Re: Request Under Freedom of Information Act (Expedited Processing & Fee Waiver/Limitation Requested)
To Whom It May Concern: The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, ACLU of Washington
Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana Foundation, and American Civil Liberties Union ofNorth Dakota (together, "ACLU") 1 submit this Freedom ofinformation 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 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., the ACLU Seeks information regarding CBP's local implementation of the Executive Order at international airports within the purview of the Seattle CBP Field Office ("Field Office").

1 The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, and American Civil Liberties Union ofNorth Dakota are non-profit, 50 l(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 ACLU of Washington Foundation and ACLU of Montana Foundation are separate 501(c)(3) organizations that provide legal representation free of charge to individuals and organizations in civil rights and civil liberties cases, educate the public about the civil rights and civil liberties implications of pending and proposed state and federal legislation, provide analyses ofpending and proposed legislation, directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators.
2 Exec. Order No. 13769,82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page2
I. Background
On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order that indefinitely blocks refugees fmm 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 Seattle-Tacoma 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
Beginning Saturday morning, protests erupted nationwide and attomeys 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
3 See, e.g, Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper, Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of7 Muslim Countries, RY. TJ.MES, Jan. 27,2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ 01/27 /us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html.
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/2017/0 1/28/us/refugeesdetained-at-us-airports~prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html; Seattle Times Staff, Legal questions surround Trump's immigration order; protests to continue tonight, SEATILE TIMES, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/live-updates-protestd-andarrests-at-sea-tac-following-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration/ (noting six travelers detained at Sea-Tac Airport).
5 Robert Mackey, America's Deportation Agents Love Trump's Ban and Rely on Breitbartfor Their News, THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 20 I 7, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/0 1130/americasdeportation-agents-love-trumps-ban-rely-breitbart-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-ice-councils. 7 Alice Speri and Ryan Devereau.x, Turmoil at DRS and State Department- "There Are People Literally Crying in the Office Here," THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30,2017, available at https://theintercept.com/20 17/0 1/30/asylum-officials-and-state-department-in-tunnoil-there-arepeople-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/20 17/0 1/29/us/politics/white-house-official-inreversal-says-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html; Issie Lapowsky and Andy Greenberg, Trump's Ban Leaves Refugees in Civil Liberties Limbo, WIRED, Jan. 28,2017, available at https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trumps-refugee-ban-direct-assault-civil-liberties/; ZoJan KannoYoungs and Ben Kesling, Thousands Flood Cities' Streets to Protest Donald Trump's Immigration Ban, WALL Sr. J., Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www. wsj .com/articles/protests-continue-againsttmmps-executive-order-banning-some-from-u-s-1485735672.

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page3
enforcement of the Executive Order.9 First, Judge Donnelly of the Eastern 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 governn1ent 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 of Massachusetts 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
At the same time, President Trump remained publicly committed to hjs 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 entry from the seven predominantly Muslim countries would remain blocked for the next 90 days. 13
In the face of nationwide confusion about the scope and validity ofthe Executive Order, guidance from other relevant actors offered little clarity. For
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-weekends-district-court-ordersimmigration-eo/.
10 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-and-order. 11 Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10 154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content!uploads/20 17/0 1/6-TRO-Jan-29-20 17.pdf. Another federal court issued an order requiring that attorneys be allowed access to all lawful pennanent residents detained at Dulles International Airport and barring the government from deporting any such individuals. See Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 {E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 20 17), available at https://www justice4all.org!v.rp-content!up!oads/20 17/0 l!TRO-order-signed;pdf. In Doe v. Trump, filed in part by the ACLU of Washington, the court banned the removal oftwo individuals. See Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. C17-l26 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontentluploads/20 17/01/Seattle-Order.pdf. Finally, in Vayeghan v. Trump, filed in part by the ACLU of Southern California, the court ordered the government to pennit 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 https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/ default/files/vayeghan_--order__re_tro.pdf. 12 Donald J. Trump, TWITTER(Jan. 29,2017 5:08A.M.), https://twitter.com/rea!DonaldTrump/status/825 692045 532618 753. 13 Donald J. Trump, Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting, Jan. 29, 20 17, available at https://www.facebookcom/DonaldTrump/posts/1 0 1585676436107
25 ("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.").

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page4

example, on Saturday, DHS confinned that the ban "will bar green card holders."14
But on Sunday, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed "the entry oflawful 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, "[w]e 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 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 Trump. 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 appem·s to differ by location.21

14 Max Greenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, TIIE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refttgee-ban-bars-green-cardholders-report.

15 Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry OfLawful Permanent Residents Into The United States, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 201.7), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1/29/statement-secretary-john-keUy-entry-lawful-permanentresidents-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/20 17/0 l/29/trumps-executive-order-no-

longer-bars-green-card-holders/.

17 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-and-presi.dents-executive-order.

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/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-generalorders-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/poli.tics/20 17/0 1/3 0/read-full-white-house-statement-sallyyates!Hk:FRelYJidU9deDelPK6SM/story.html.

20 Statementfrom Secretary Kelly on the President's Appointment ofThomas D. Homan as Acting ICE Director, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 30, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/01/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointment-thomas-dhoman-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/20 17/01 /29/people_are _still._ detained_at_lax.php; Daniel Marans, Customs and Border Officials DefY Court Order on Lawful Residents, BUFFINGTON POST, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://www.huffmgtonpost.com /entry/dulles-airport-feds-violated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08al4f7e67bcf; Tom Cleary, Is Border Patrol DefYing Federal Judge's Stay on Immigration Executive Order?, HEAVY, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/border-patrol-homeland-security-defying-ignoringfollowing-judge-ruling-stay-immigration-executive-order-dulles-dfw-muslim-banl; Tess Owen,

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 35
February 2, 2017 PageS

Accordingly, the ACLU seeks to supplement the public record to clarify CBP's understanding and implementation ofthe Executive Order at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Fargo-Hector International Airport in Fargo, ND ("Local International Airports''), and the Seattle and Fargo-Hector International Airport ports of entry ("Port of Entry Offices"). Tlumtgh this request, the ACLU aims to facilitate the public's indispensable role in checking the power of our public officials and to leam about the facts on the ground in Montana, North Dakota and Washington State and the Local International Airports.

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:

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 DRS field personnel sh01tly" 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

Waiting for Answers: We Still Don't Know How Many People are Being Detained at U,.r.; Airports, VICE NEWS, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://news.vice.com/story/we-still-dont-know-how-manypeople-are-being-detained-at-us-airports.
22 Protecting the Nation from Foreigit Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS A"lD BORDERPROTECTION (Jan. 31, 20 17), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protectingnarion-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).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 20 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 6
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 ofRemoval, issued in the Eastern District ofNew York on January 27, 2017, including records related to CBP's efforts to comply with the court's oral order requiring:Erompt production of a list of all class members detained by CBP; 4
e. Judge Brinkema's Temporary Restrainin~ Order, issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017; 5
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 Bunoughs' 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 Restraini~f Order, issued in the Central District of California on January 29, 2017;
1. 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·'29
23 See Alice Sperl 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/20 17/0 1/30/asy lum-officials-and-state-departme:nt-in-turmoil-there-arepeople-literal!y-crying-in-the-office-here/. 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/legai-documentldarweesh-v-trump-decision-and-order. 25 Temporary Restraining Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4alLorg/wp-content/uploads/20 17/01/TRO-order-signed.pdf. 26 Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal, Doe v. Trump, No. Cl7-126 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 20 17), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/upioads/ 20 17/01/Seattle-Order.pdf. 27 Temporary Restraining Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0116-TRO-Jan-29-20 17.pdf. 28 Order, Vayeghan v. Trump, No. CV 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 20 17), available at https://v.'WW.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_-_order_re~tro. pdf.

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 21 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page7

k. DHS Secretary John Kelly's "Statement on the Entry of Lawful Pem1anent Residents Into the United States," issued on January 29, 2017;30
l. 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 Intemational Aitports

pursuant to the Executive Order, including:

a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement exanlination, 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 oftime at Local International Airports since January 27, 2017, including the number of individuals who have been

1. 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 Intemational Airports from January 27, 2017 to date pursuant to

the Executive Order;

29 Department ofHomeland Security Response to Recent Litigation, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/01/29/department-homeland-securityresponse-recent-litigation.
30 Statementfrom Secretary Kelly on the President's Appointment ofThomas D. Homan as Acting ICE Director, DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 30, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17/0 1/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointment-thomas-dhoman-acting-ice-director.
31 DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President's Executive Order, DEP'TOF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/20 17I
0 l/29/dhs-statement-compliance-court-orders-and-presidents·executive-order.

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 22 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page8

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 CBJ>'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 Oflices and Regional Field Operations Office. CBP has an obligation to search all such field oftlces that are reasonably expected to produce any relevant information. See, e.g., Oglesby v. US Dep 't ofArrny, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Marks v. US Dep'tofJustice, 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 o.fHomeland 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 ±bider, and all relevant archive files.

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 lin1ited to, any and all records relating or refeni.ng to the events leading to the destruction of those records.

As required by the relevant case law, the agency should follow any leads it discovers during the conduct of its searches and should perfom1 additional searches

32 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/protectingnation-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).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 23 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 9
when said leads indicate that records may be located in another system. Failure to follow clear leads is a violation of FOIA.
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 fonnat, if possible. Altematively, the ACLU requests that the records be provided electronically in a text-searchable, static-image format (PDF), in the best image quality in the agency's possession, and that the records be provided in separate, Bates-stamped 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 infonnation "to infonn 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 irrform the public about actual or alleged government activity.
The ACLU is "primarily engaged in disseminating infonnation" within the meaning ofthe statute. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II)?4 Obtaining information about govemment activity, analyzing that information, and widely publishing and disseminating that jnformation to the press and public are critical and substantial components of the ACLU's work and are among its primary activities. See ACLU v. US. Dep 't ofJustice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 29n.5 (D.D.C. 2004) (finding non-profit public interest group that "gathers infom1ation of potential interest to a segment ofthe public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience" to be "primarily engaged in disseminating information"). 35
The ACLU regularly publishes STAND, a print magazine that reports on and analyzes civil liberties-related current events. The magazine is disseminated to over 620,000 people. The ACLU also publishes regular updates and alerts via email to approximately 2.1 million subscribers (both ACLU members and non-members).
33 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(1 ). 34 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(l)(ii). 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, II (D.D.C. 2003).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 24 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 10
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 Washington regularly publishes Civil Liberties, a bi-annual member newsletter. Over 91,000 subscribers receive e-mail alerts from ACLU of Washington, and its website (www.aclu-wa.org) received 91,362 page views in the past 90 days. Its Facebook page has over 20,000 followers (https://www.facebook.com/acluwf0. The ACLU of Montana likewise publishes a newsletter with nearly 2,500 subscribers, and over 7.321 people receive its email alerts.
The 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 of Washington, .Judge Orders New District System to Ensure Meaningful Vote for Latino Community in Pasco City Council Elections (Jan. 27, 2016), http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/judge-orders-new..:ilis.Jri9.t-system-ensure-meaningful-vote-latinocommunity-pasco-city-council; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Lawsuit Seeks to End UnlaHful Seizure and Destruction ofHomeless People's Property (Jan. 19, 2017), http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/lawsuit-seeks-end-unlawful-seizure-and-destruction-homelesspeople%E2%80%99s-property; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, ,,fontana Supreme Court Rules Effective Date ofCl-116 is .July 1, 2017 {Jan. 4, 2017), https:/lwww.aclumontana.org!enlnews/press-release-marsys-Iaw-effective-date; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, First .Judicial District Court Grants Motion to Preserve And Produce Evidence in Death Penalty Case Smith v Batista (Dec. 19, 2016), https ://www .aclumontana.orglen!news/press-release-smith-v-batista; Press Release, NLG and ACL U 5'ubmit FOIA and Open Records Requests to Investigate Unconstitutional Surveillance ofWater Protectors at Standing Rock (Oct. 20, 20 16), https://www.nlg.org/nlg-and-aclu-submit-foia-and-openrecords-requests-to-investigate-unconstitutional-surveillance-of-water-protectors.:.<.i.!:.Stalli!mg:rQ.QkL; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, Statement On Excessive Use OfForce Against Pipeline Protester (Sept. 4, 20 16), https://www.aclund.org/enlpress-releases/aclu-northdakota-statement-excessive-use-force-against-pipeline-protesters; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, US Releases Drone Strike 'Playbook' in Response to ACLU Lawsuit (Aug. 6, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/us-releases-drone-strike-playbook-response-aclu-lawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, Secret Documents Describe Graphic Abuse and Admit Mistakes (June 14, 20 16), https://www.aclu.org/news/cia-relea<>es-dozens-torture-documents-response-aclu-lawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. Releases Targeted Killing Memo in Response to Long-Running ACLU Lawsuit (June 23, 2014), https://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-releasestargeted-killing-memo-response-long~running-aclu-lawsuit; Press Release, American Civil Liberties Union, Justice Department White Paper Details Rationalefor Targeted Killing ofAmericans (Feb. 4, 20 13), 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-showfbi-monitored-bay-area-occupy-movement-insidebayareacom.
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-document-sbeds-light-on-how-president-approves-dronestrikes/2016!08/06/f424fe50-5be0-ll e6-83ld-0324760ca856_story.html (quoting former ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer); Catherine Thorbecke, rVhat Newly Released CIA Documents Reveal About 'Torture' in Its Former Detention Program, ABC, June 15, 2016,

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 25 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 11
Similarly, the 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?8 The ACLU also regularly publishes books, "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 ACLU of Washington likewise regularly publishes reports on civii liberties abuses in Washington State39 and "know your rights guides.40
The 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 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://wVv'W.aclu.org/multimedia. The ACLU also publishes, analyzes, and disseminates information through its heavily visited website, 'WW'v.aclu.org. The website addresses civil rights and civil liberties issues in depth, provides features on
http://abcnews.go.cmn!US/newly-released-cia-documents-reveal-torture-detentionprograrnlstory?id=39873389 (quoting ACLU staff attorney Dror Ladin); Nicky Woolf, US Marshals Spent $10M on Equipmentfor Warrantless Stingray Device, Guardian, Mar. 17,2016, https://w>'Av.theguardian.com./\.vorld/20 16/mar/17/us-marshals-stingray-surveillance-airborne (quoting ACLU attorney Nate Wessler); David Welna, Government Suspected q{Wanting CIA Torture Report to Remain Secret, NPR, Dec. 9, 2015, http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459026249/cia-torture-reportmay-remain-secret (quoting 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, 3:15PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/acluobtained-emails-prove-federal-bureau-prisons-covered-its-visit-cias-torture; ACLU, Details Abound in Drone 'Playbook' -Exceptfor the Ones That Really Matter Most (Aug. 8, 2016,5:30 PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/details-abound-drone-playbook-except-ones-really-mattermost; ACLU, ACLU- Obtained Documents Reveal Breadth ofSecretive Stingray Use in Florida (Feb. 22, 2015, 5:30PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadthsecretive-stingray-use-florida; ACLU, New NSA Documents Shine 1'vfore Light into Black Box of Executive Order 12333 (Oct. 30,2014, 3:29PM), https://www.aclu.org!blog/new-nsa-documentsshine-more-light-black-box-executive-order-12333; ACLU, ACLUEye on the FBI: Documents Rrn,eal Lack ofPrivacy Sqfeguards and Guidance in Government's ''Suspicious Activity Report" Systems (Oct 29, 20 13), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/eye_on._fbi_-_sars.pdf.
39 See, e.g., Keeping Everyone Safe: Changes Needed to Pasco Police Practices, http://acluwa.org/docs/keeping-everyone-safe-changes-needed-pasco-police-practices; Modern-Day Debtors· Prisons in Washington, http://aclu-wa.org/docs/modern-day-debtors-prisons-washington).
40 See. e.g., Know Your Rights Guide: Protests, hl!:..t2;!!aclu-wa.org/docs!know-your-rights-guideprotests; Know Your Rights When Stopped by Police, Immigration or the FBI, http://aclu-
wa.org/docs/know-your-rights-when-stopped-police-immigration-or-_fbi; Q & A: Stingrays & the
Tacoma Police Department, http://aclu-wa.org/docs/q-stingrays-tacoma-police-department).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 26 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 12
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 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 ACLU provides the public with educational material, recent news, analyses of relevant Congressional or executive branch action, govemment documents obtained through FOIA requests, and further in-depth analytic and educational multi-media features.
The ACLU website includes many features on information obtained through the FOIA.41 For example, the ACLU's "Predator Drones FOIA" webpage, https:/lwv.JW.aclu.org/national-security/predator-drones-foia, 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 of FOIA documents that allows researchers and the public to conduct sophisticated searches of FOIA docmnents relating to government policies on rendition, detention, and interrogation.42
The ACLU has also published a number of charts and explanatory materials that collect, smnmarize, 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 smveillance.43 Similarly, the ACLU produced a summary of documents released in response to a FOIA request related to the FISA Amendments Act44; a chart of original statistics about the Defense Department's use ofNational Security Letters based on its own analysis of records obtained through FOIA requests45; and an analysis of documents obtained through
41 See, e.g., https://www.aclu.org!blog/free-future/fbi -releases-details-:r..ero-day-exploitdecisionmaking-process; https://www.aclu.org!blog/free-future/fbi-documents-reveal-newinfonnation-baltimore~surveillanee-flights; https://www.aclu.org/national-security/anwar-al-awlakifoia-request; https://www.aclu.org/cases/aelu-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.btml; bttps://www.aclu.org/patriot-foia; https://www.aclu.org/nsl-documents-released-dod?redirect=cpredirectl32088.
42 https://www.thetorturedatabase.org. See also https://www.aclu.org/foia-collection!targeted-killingfoia-database.
43 https://www.aclu.org/sites/defaultlfiles/pdfs!safefree/olcmemos_2009_0305.pdf. 44 https://www.aclu.org/ftles/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20 I01129/20101129Summary.pdf. 45 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/tiles/field_documentinsl_stats.pdf.

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 27 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 13
FOIA requests about FBI surveillance flights over Baltimore.46 The ACLU of Washington publishes the results of FOIA requests on its website. See, e.g., Surveillance Files on Local Activist, http://aclu-wa.org/docs/see-surveillance-fileslocal-activist).
The ACLU plans to analyze, publish, and disseminate to the public the information gathered through this Request. 111e 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 record<> sought are urgently needed to inform thepublic about actual or alleged government activity.
These records are urgently needed to inform the fublic about actual or alleged government activity. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). 7 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 of this 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).48 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 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
46 https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/fbi-documents-reveal-new-information-baltimoresurveillance-flights. 47 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(l)(ii). 48 See also 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 28 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 14
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 ofthe public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(III);49 see also Nat'l Sec. Archive v. US'. Dep't ofDefense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1.989) (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" tor purposes of
the FOIA); Serv. Women's Action Netv.mrk v. U.S. Dep 't ofDefense, 888 F. Supp. 2d
282 (D. Conn. 2012) (requesters, including ACLU, wete representatives ofthe 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 Q[ Justice, No. C09-0642RSL, 2011 WL 887731, 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 turn 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 infom1ation."
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 o.fAction 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
49 See also 6 C.P.R. § 5.11 (b)(6).

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 29 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 15
and published books was a "representative ofthe news media" for purposes ofthe FOIA); Nat 'l Sec. Archive, 880 F.2d at 1387; Judicial Watch, Inc. v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 133 F. Supp. 2d 52, 53-54 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding Judicial Watch, selfdescribed as a "public interest law firm," a news media requester).50
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."51 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 expe.dited 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.
°5 Courts have found these organizations to be "representatives of the news media" even though they
engage in litigation and lobbying activities beyond their dissemination ofinfommtion I public education activities. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy 1nfo. 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.
51 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 April2013, the National Security Division of the DOJ granted a tee-waiver request with respect to a request for documents relating to the FISA Amendments Act. Also in April 20 13, 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 20 ll, 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 Department 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 Department 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. Department 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 March 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 fi:om the country because of their political views, statements, or associations. In addition, the Department of Defense did not charge the ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted by the ACLU in Apri12007, June 2006, February 2006, and October 2003. The DOJ did not charge the ACLU fees associated with FOIA requests submitted by the ACLU in November 2007, December 2005, and December 2004. Finally, three separate agencies-the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office oflntelligence 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.

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 30 of 35
February 2, 2017 Page 16
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 belie£ See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(vi).
Respectfully,
mily Chiang Legal Director ACLU ofWashington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 echiang@aclu-wa.org
cc: SK Rossi, ACLU of Montana Courtney Bowie, ACLU of North Dakota

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 31 of 35
EXHIBITB

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 32 of 35

From: CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov [mailto:CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:12PM To: Emily Chiang
Subject: FOIA Request CBP-2017-029174 Submitted

This message is to confirm information is as follows:

your

request

submission

to

the

FOIAonline

application:

View

Request.

Request

• Tracking Number: CBP-2017-029174 • Requester Name: Emily Chiang • Date Submitted: 02/07/2017 • Request Status: Submitted • Description: The ACLU seeks information regarding CBP's local implementation of the Executive
Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States". The ACLU seeks to supplement the public record to clarify CBP's understanding and implementation of the Executive Order at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Fargo-Hector International Airport in Fargo, ND and the Seattle and Fargo-Hector International Airport ports of entry. 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 Montana, North Dakota and Washington State and the Local International Airports.

1

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 33 of 35
EXHIBIT C

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 34 of 35

Emily Chiang 90 1 Fifth Ave #630 Seattle, WA 98164

90 K Street NE MS 1181
Washington, DC 20229
February 10, 2017

Dear Emily Chiang:

This automated notice acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received on 02/07/2017. Please use the following unique FOIA tracking number CBP-2017-029174 to track the status of your request. If you have not already done so, you must create a FOIAonline account at https://foiaonline.regulations.gov. This is the only method
available to check the status of your pend1ng FOIA request.

Provisions of the Act allow us to recover part of the cost of complying with your request. We shall charge you for records in accordance with the DHS FOIA regulations outlined on the DHS website,
http://www.dhs.gov/xfoia/editorial 0579.shtm. By submitting your request, you have agreed to pay up to $25.00 1n applicable process1ng tees, 1f any tees associated with your request exceed this amount, CBP shall contact you; however, the first 100 pages are free.

CBP's FOIA Division is working hard to reduce the amount of time necessary to respond to FOIA requests. Currently, the average time to process a FOIA request related to "travel/border incidents" is a minimum of 6 months. We truly appreciate your continued patience.

For additional information please consult CBP FOIA website please click on FOIA Act Resources or visit http://www.cbp.gov/site-policy-notices/foia.

Thank you,

Case 2:17-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 35 of 35
Sincerely, Sharon Deshield U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 CaCseas2e:1M7D-cLv-N00o5. 6227-8R6SLDoDcuomcuemnte8n8t 28FileFdile0d8/0082//0127/17PaPgeag1eo1f 5of 5

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.

CaCseas2e:1M7D-cLv-N00o5. 6227-8R6SLDoDcuomcuemnte8n8t 28FileFdile0d8/0082//0127/17PaPgeag2eo2f 5of 5
-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.

CaCseas2e:1M7D-cLv-N00o5. 6227-8R6SLDoDcuomcuemnte8n8t 28FileFdile0d8/0082//0127/17PaPgeag3eo3f 5of 5
-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

CaCseas2e:1M7D-cLv-N00o5. 6227-8R6SLDoDcuomcuemnte8n8t 28FileFdile0d8/0082//0127/17PaPgeag4eo4f 5of 5

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

CaCseas2e:1M7D-cLv-N00o5. 6227-8R6SLDoDcuomcuemnte8n8t 28FileFdile0d8/0082//0127/17PaPgeag5eo5f 5of 5
- 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 2:17-cv-00562-MJP Document 53 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00562-MJP Document 53 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00562-MJP Document 53 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:17-cv-00562-MJP Document 53 Filed 02/26/19 Page 4 of 4

 
 3/21/2020

Query Reports

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Utilities Help Log Out

CLOSED

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17-cv-00562-MJP

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Marsha J. Pechman Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Date Terminated: 02/26/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington

represented by Emily Chiang ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206-624-2184 Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Montana

Eric M Stahl DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA) 920 FIFTH AVE STE 3300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1610 206-622-3150 Fax: 206-757-7700 Email: ericstahl@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Emily Chiang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota

Eric M Stahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Emily Chiang (See above for address)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

1/7

3/21/2020
V. Defendant US Department of Homeland Security
Defendant US Customs and Border Protection

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric M Stahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chetan Patil US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL BOX 883) PO BOX 883 WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202-305-4968 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/26/2017
Jason Lee US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL 20 MASS) CIVIL DIVISION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW STE 7300 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202-514-3367 Email: jason.lee3@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Berns US DEPT. OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202-616-8016 TERMINATED: 12/26/2017
represented by Chetan Patil (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/26/2017
Jason Lee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/26/2017

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

2/7

3/21/2020
Date Filed 04/12/2017
04/13/2017 04/13/2017 04/18/2017 04/18/2017 04/27/2017
04/27/2017
05/08/2017 05/08/2017
05/09/2017 05/10/2017 05/11/2017
05/11/2017 05/11/2017

# Docket Text

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3

1 COMPLAINT against defendant(s) U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Receipt # 0981-4837936), ﬁled by American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

Judge Robert S. Lasnik added. (RE) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

2 Summons electronically issued as to all Defendants. (RE) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

3 NOTICE of Pendency of Other Action ; ﬁled by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

5 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection on 4/14/2017, ﬁled by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 04/27/2017)

6 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection on 4/14/2017, ﬁled by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 04/27/2017)

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

8 NOTICE of Pendency of Other Action in Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, case number in other court [not yet assigned] ; ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (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)

9 ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 5/26/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RS) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

10 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint with Proposed Order, ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Noting Date 5/10/2017, (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer, ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/26/2017, (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

12 ORDER granting 10 Stipulated Motion for extension of deadline to 6/29/17 to respond to complaint; Joint Status Report extended to 6/20/2017 7/20/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) Modiﬁed on 5/19/2017 (KERR). (Entered: 05/11/2017)

13 NOTICE of defendants' motion to transfer to MDL Panel (RS) (Entered: 05/15/2017)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

3/7

3/21/2020
05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/22/2017
05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/26/2017 05/31/2017
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 06/06/2017 06/12/2017 06/29/2017 07/10/2017
07/20/2017 07/28/2017 08/02/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
NOTICE of Docket Text Modiﬁcation re 12 Order on Stipulated Motion. Changed deadline for Joint Status report from 6/20/2017 to 7/20/2017. (KERR) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Reset Deadline: Joint Status Report due by 7/20/2017 (KERR) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Chetan Patil on behalf of Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
15 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, to 11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
16 REPLY, ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TO RESPONSE to 11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick S. Kabat in re: American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act, MDL No. 2786. (SWT) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
19 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ﬁled by Patrick Kabut in re American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act, MDL 2786. (SWT) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
17 NOTICE of Filing Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer to the District of Columbia for Consolidation ; ﬁled by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Plaintiffs, 42 American Civil Liberties Union Afﬁliates, in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Transfer to the District of Columbia for Consolidation)(Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
21 NOTICE of documents ﬁled with MDL Panel re MDL 2786 (RS) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
20 ORDER denying Defendants' 11 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
22 NOTICE of Filing of JPML Reply Brief ; ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 JPML Reply Brief) (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
23 NOTICE of documents ﬁled with MDL Panel re: MDL 2786. (Notice ﬁled in paper via the U.S. Mail) (PM) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
24 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
25 AMENDED NOTICE of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument re MDL no. 2786 ; ﬁled by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (SWT) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
26 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 0. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
27 ORDER Extending Time to Submit Joint Status Report; Joint Status Report due by 8/25/2017, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
28 ORDER denying transfer re MDL 2786, in re: American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Regarding Executive Order 13769; signed by Sarah S. Vance, Chair of Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.(SWT) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

4/7

3/21/2020
08/25/2017 08/31/2017 09/01/2017 09/05/2017 09/25/2017 09/28/2017 10/17/2017
10/19/2017 10/20/2017 11/06/2017

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
29 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
Case Reassigned to Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Judge Robert S. Lasnik no longer assigned to the case. All pleadings ﬁled in the future shall bear case number C17-562MJP. (KERR) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Jason Lee on behalf of Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
31 MINUTE ORDER Extending Time to Submit Joint Status Report. Joint Status Report due by 9/25/2017. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
32 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 0. (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
33 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/17/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
34 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Eric Stahl; Def Counsel: Jason Lee, Lawrence Lucarelli; CR: Andrea Ramirez; Status Conference held on 10/17/2017. Court directs Plaintiff to provide the Government with search terms within seven days. The Government is directed to turn over the ﬁrst 1000 pages of documents responsive to the FOIA request within 30 days. The next 1000 pages are due within 60 days and any remaining pages are due within 90 days. (RM) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
35 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
36 ORDER re Status Conference on 10/17/17; By January 31, 2018, the parties shall submit a joint status report and proposed case schedule to the Court (See Order for more details), signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
37 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Hearing held on 10/17/2017 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript, contact court reporter Andrea Ramirez, andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov, 206-370-8509.

12/26/2017
01/10/2018 01/12/2018

Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/5/2018, (AR) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
38 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Matthew J Berns and Chetan Patil for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
39 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
40 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Defendants shall complete their review and processing of the remaining, approximately 150 outstanding records identiﬁed as potentially responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request, and produce to

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

5/7

3/21/2020
01/29/2018 01/31/2018 03/02/2018 03/06/2018
05/01/2018 05/03/2018 11/15/2018
01/23/2019 01/24/2019 01/28/2019 01/29/2019 01/29/2019
01/29/2019 02/25/2019 02/26/2019

WAWD CM/ECF Version 1.3
Plaintiffs all non-exempt, responsive records, by January 19, 2018. (PM) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
41 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
42 STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing the deadline to submit the Joint Status Report from 1/31/2018 to 3/2/2018. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
43 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Jason) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
44 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint motion to set deadline for subsequent joint status report, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the parties shall ﬁle a joint status report by 5/1/2018. Authorized by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
45 JOINT STATUS REPORT and joint motion to set case deadlines signed by all parties (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Jason) Modiﬁed on 5/2/2018 (RM). (Entered: 05/01/2018)
46 ORDER re 45 Joint Status Report and Joint Motion to Set Case Deadlines. Discovery completed by 11/1/2018, Dispositive motions due by 1/31/2019. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
47 NOTICE of Change of Address/Change of Name of Attorney Eric M Stahl. Filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. (Stahl, Eric) Modiﬁed ﬁrm address on 12/4/2018 (DS). (Entered: 11/15/2018)
48 Agreed MOTION to Stay , ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, US Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/23/2019, (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
49 ORDER granting Defendants' 48 Consent Motion to Stay in Light of Lapse of Appropriations. Parties shall ﬁle a Joint Status Report within thirty days of the restoration of appropriations. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SWT) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
50 NOTICE of Restoration of Appropriations ; ﬁled by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, US Department of Homeland Security. (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/25/2019. (RM) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
NOTICE REGARDING LACK OF PROPER SIGNATURE. The 50 Notice of Restoration of Appropriations was improperly signed by Jason Lee. Signatures must comply with ECF Filing Procedures. Please ﬁle corrected signature page using Praecipe to Attach event and link to original ﬁling. (PM) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
51 PRAECIPE to attach document re 50 Notice-Other by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, US Department of Homeland Security (Lee, Jason) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
52 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER For Dismissal by parties (Stahl, Eric) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
53 STIPULATION AND ORDER for Dismissal re parties' 52 Stipulation, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SWT) (Entered: 02/26/2019)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?419317204620227-L_1_0-1

6/7