Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:1

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar
2 No. 141930) 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500
4 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP BRENDAN N. CHARNEY (CA State
Bar No. 293378) 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Email: brendancharney@dwt.com

5 ACLU OF NEVADA FOUNDATION AMY ROSE (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
6 601 S. Rancho Drive, Suite B-11 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
7 Telephone: (702) 366-1536 Email: rose@aclunv.org
8 9 10

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEVON PORTER (CA State Bar No.
308365) PETER BIBRING (CA State Bar No.
223981) 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Email: dporter@aclusocal.org Email: pbibring@aclusocal.org

11 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
12 MITRA EBADOLAHI (CA State Bar No. 275157)
13 P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131
14 Telephone: (619) 398-4187 Email: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA
17

18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION) Case No. ________

21 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and )

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION) COMPLAINT FOR

22 OF NEVADA,

) DECLARATORY AND

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR

23

) VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM

Plaintiffs,

) OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C.

24

) § 552 et seq.

v.

)

25

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

26 SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND )

BORDER PROTECTION,

)

27

)

Defendants.

)

28

1 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:2

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the

3 American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “ACLU”)

4 bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et

5 seq., as amended, to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief requiring

6 Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Customs and

7 Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to a FOIA

8 request sent by Plaintiffs on February 2, 2017 (“Request”), and to promptly disclose

9 the requested records.

10

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

11 President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation

12 From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” Exec. Order No. 13769, 82

13 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017) (“Executive Order No. 1”), as well as any other

14 judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No.1,

15 including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order, identically titled,

16 Exec. Order No. 13780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017) (“Executive Order No.

17 2”) (collectively, “Executive Orders”). A true and correct copy of the Request is

18 attached as Exhibit A.

19

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

20 implementation of the Executive Orders at sites within the purview of CBP’s Los

21 Angeles Field Office. These include Los Angeles International Airport and

22 McCarran International Airport (“Local International Airports”) and the Las Vegas

23 and Los Angeles ports of entry (“Local Ports of Entry”).

24

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

25 admissions and bar entrants from several predominantly Muslim countries from

26 entering the United States.

27

5. Defendants’ implementation of the Executive Orders has been the

28 subject of significant public concern, as reflected by mass protests around the

2 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:3

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 country, substantial news coverage, and numerous lawsuits filed following the

2 President’s signing of each Executive Order.

3

6. Over the weekend of January 27–29, 2017, at least five lawsuits

4 resulted in emergency court orders enjoining implementation of various sections of 5 Executive Order No. 1.1 On March 15, 2017, a district court enjoined 6 implementation of Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 2.2

7

7. News reports described Defendants’ implementation of the Executive

8 Orders as “chaotic” and “total[ly] lack[ing] . . . clarity and direction.”3

9

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

10 stated on January 28 that Executive Order No. 1 would “bar green card holders.”4

11 The next day, however, DHS Secretary John Kelly deemed “the entry of lawful 12 permanent residents to be in the national interest”5 and the government clarified that 13 Executive Order No. 1 did not apply to green card holders.6

14

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

15 Duckworth and Dick Durbin called upon the Office of the Inspector General of the

16

17 1 Vayeghan v. Kelly, No. CV 17-0702, 2017 WL 396531 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017);

18

Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-CV-10154, 2017 WL 386550 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017); Doe v. Trump, No. C17-126, 2017 WL 388532 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2017);

19

Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-CV-116, 2017 WL 386549 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017); Darweesh v. Trump, No. 17 CIV. 480 (AMD), 2017 WL 388504 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28,

20

2017). 2 Hawai’i v. Trump, No. CV 17-00050 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 1011673 (D. Haw.

21

Mar. 15, 2017). 3 See, e.g., Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens

22

Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 1, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-security-

23 24

inspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-rollout-orders-document4prSeeseerMvaatxioGn/r.eenwood, Immigration Ban Includes Green Card Holders: DHS, THE HILL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-

25 t5rSutmatpe-mreefnutgBeey-bSaencr-betaarrsy-gJroehenn-Kcaerldly-hOonldTerhse-rEepnotrryt.Of Lawful Permanent Residents

26

Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-entry-lawful-

27

permanent-residents-united-states. 6 See Robert Mackey, As Protests Escalate, Trump Retreats From Barring Green

28

Card Holders, THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 29, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumps-executive-order-no-longer-bars-green-

card-holders/.

3

FOIA COMPLAINT

4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:4

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 Department of Homeland Security to investigate Defendants’ implementation of 2 Executive Order No. 1.7 The Senators specifically sought information regarding:

3 any guidance Defendants provided to the White House in developing the order; any

4 directions that were provided to Defendants in implementing it; whether CBP

5 officers complied with the relevant court orders; and whether DHS and CBP officers

6 kept a list of individuals that they had detained at ports of entry under the order. In

7 response, the Inspector General directed Defendants’ personnel to preserve all

8 records “that might reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant information relating 9 the implementation of” Executive Order No. 1.8

10

10. Upon information and belief, the January 27, 2017 Executive Order

11 resulted in at least dozens of individuals being detained at Los Angeles International

12 Airport in the days immediately following Executive Order No. 1. The exact

13 number is unknown. Upon information and belief, among those detained were (1) a

14 lawful permanent resident from Iran who was scheduled to be sworn in as a U.S.

15 citizen in February, and who was traveling with her U.S. citizen infant son; (2) an

16 Iranian citizen with a valid U.S. student visa, whom CBP removed from the country

17 nearly two hours after a federal judge had ordered the government to halt all

18 removals immediately; and (3) an Iranian citizen with a valid U.S. visa that had been 19 granted as a result of a petition filed by his U.S. citizen son.9 Additionally, upon

20 information and belief, an 80-year-old insulin-dependent Iranian diabetic with a

21 heart condition was detained with her husband for nearly twenty-four hours after the

22

23

7 See Ryan Devereaux et al., Homeland Security Inspector General Opens Investigation of Muslim Ban, Orders Document Preservation, THE INTERCEPT, Feb.

24

1, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/homeland-securityinspector-general-opens-investigation-of-muslim-ban-rollout-orders-document-

25 8prIeds.ervation/.

26

9 See Kate Mather, California student, who was detained 23 hours at LAX and then deported, returns to U.S., LOS ANGELES TIMES, Feb. 5, 2017, available at

27

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sara-yarjani-returns-20170205story.html; see also Jennifer Medina, He Was Sent Back to Iran. Now, a Court Says

28

the U.S. Must Readmit Him. NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/iran-brothers-travel-ban-ali-

vayeghan.html?_r=0.

4

FOIA COMPLAINT

4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:5

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 couple arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to visit their son, a lawful 2 permanent resident; the couple had valid tourist visas.10

3

11. Hundreds of peaceful protesters arrived at Los Angeles International

4 Airport on Saturday, January 28, 2017 to protest the January 27, 2017 Executive

5 Order. By Sunday, January 29, 2017, the peaceful protestors gathered at Los 6 Angeles International Airport numbered in the thousands.11

7

12. Upon information and belief, several individuals were held for

8 secondary questioning for unreasonable lengths of time by CBP at McCarran 9 International Airport as a result of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order.12 For

10 example, on January 28, 2017, one elderly wheel-chair bound couple of Syrian

11 descent was held by CBP for several hours, despite the fact that they were both

12 lawful permanent residents of the United States.

13

13. Over 200 peaceful protestors convened at McCarran International

14 Airport on Sunday afternoon, January 29, 2017, to protest the January 27, 2017 15 Executive Order.13

16

14. Disclosure of the records Plaintiffs seek through this action would

17 facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced

18 the Executive Orders in the Los Angeles Field Office, including in particular at Los

19

20

21 10 See First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief at ¶¶ 38–44, Azad v. Trump, No. 17-00706 (C.D.

22 Cal. dismissed Feb. 17, 2017), ECF No. 36.

23

11 See Adam R. Thomas, Thousands protest ‘Muslim ban’ at LAX, DAILY 49ER, Jan. 29, 2017, available at http://www.daily49er.com/news/2017/01/29/thousands-

24

protest-muslim-ban-at-lax/. 12 See Pashtana Usufzy & Rio Lacanlale, Family Endures ‘Scary, Stressful’ Airport

25

Wait Because of Trump Immigration Order, LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, Jan. 28, 2017, available at https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-

26

government/family-endures-scary-stressful-airport-wait-because-of-trumpimmigration-order/;

27 13 Nathan O’Neal, et al., Immigrant ban protest conducted at McCarran’s Terminal 3, CBS NEWS LAS VEGAS, available at http://news3lv.com/news/local/immigration-
28 ban-protest-planned-for-3-pm-today-at-mccarran-terminal-3.

5 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:6

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 Angeles International Airport and McCarran International Airport. Such information

2 is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable.

3

15. This action is necessary because Defendants have failed to provide

4 Plaintiffs with a determination as to whether they will comply with the Request,

5 although more than 20 business days have elapsed since Defendants received the

6 Request.

7

JURISDICTION

8

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

9 jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706,

10 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

11

VENUE

12

17. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 5 U.S.C.

13 § 552(a)(4)(B) as the requested agency records are, upon information and belief,

14 situated within this District at CBP facilities at or near the Los Angeles Field Office,

15 including the Los Angeles International Airport. Venue is also proper because

16 Plaintiff ACLU of Southern California’s principal place of business is in the Central

17 District of California. For the same reasons, venue also is proper under 28 U.S.C. §

18 1391(e).

19

PARTIES

20

18. Plaintiffs are non-profit, 501(c)(4) membership organizations that

21 educate the public about the civil liberties implications of pending and proposed

22 state and federal legislation, provide analysis of pending and proposed legislation,

23 directly lobby legislators, and mobilize their members to lobby their legislators.

24

19. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a department of the

25 executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5

26 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).

27

20. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component of DHS

28 and is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).

6 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:7

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

21. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore believe that Defendants have

2 possession, custody, or control of the requested records.

3

FACTS

4

22. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs sent the Request to CBP’s Los Angeles

5 Field Office and CBP’s FOIA Officer at CBP Headquarters via certified, trackable

6 mail. The Request to CBP Headquarters was sent with USPS tracking number 7016

7 0910 0001 4693 3598. See Exhibit B-1. The Request to CBP’s Los Angeles Field

8 Office was sent with a USPS tracking number of 7016 0910 0001 4693 3581. See

9 Exhibit B-2.

10

23. The Request sought copies of CBP’s local interpretation and

11 enforcement of the Executive Order at: 1) certain airports specified in the Request,

12 including Los Angeles International Airport and McCarran International Airport

13 (“Local International Airports”); and 2) certain Port of Entry offices specified in the

14 Request, including Los Angeles Port of Entry Office and Las Vegas Port of Entry

15 Office (“Local Ports of Entry”). The Request expressly did not seek information

16 held in the records of CBP Headquarters.

17

24. Specifically, the Request sought the following:

18

1. “Records created on or after January 27, 2017 concerning CBP’s

19

interpretation, enforcement, and implementation of the following at

20

Local International Airports:

21

a. President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017

22

and titled ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry

23

Into the United States’;

24

b. Any guidance ‘provided to DHS field personnel shortly’ after

25

President Trump signed the Executive Order, as referenced in

26

CBP’s online FAQ;14

27

28

14 To assist CBP in responding, the Request included the following information in a footnote for reference: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the

United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at

7

FOIA COMPLAINT

4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:8

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

could not adjudicate any immigration claims from the seven

5

targeted countries;15

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

prompt production of a list of all class members detained by

11

CBP;16

12

e. Judge Brinkema’s Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the

13

Eastern District of Virginia on January 28, 2017;17

14

f. Judge Zilly’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for Stay of

15

Removal, issued in the Western District of Washington on

16

January 28, 2017;18

17

18
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-

19 united-states (‘The Executive Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly
20 thereafter.’) (emphasis added).”

21

15 The following footnote was included for reference: “See Alice Speri and Ryan Devereaux, Turmoil at DHS and State Department—‘There Are People Literally

22

Crying in the Office Here,’ THE INTERCEPT, Jan. 30, 2017, available at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/asylum-officials-and-state-department-in-

23

turmoil-there-are-people-literally-crying-in-the-office-here/.” 16 The following footnote was included for reference: “Decision and Order,

24 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.”

25 17 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining

26

Order, Aziz v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017), available at https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TRO-order-signed.pdf.”

27 18 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,

28 2017), available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/SeattleOrder.pdf.”

8 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:9

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

g. Judge Burroughs’ Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the

2

District of Massachusetts on January 29, 2017;19

3

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

4

for Temporary Restraining Order, issued in the Central District

5

of California on January 29, 2017;20

6

i. Assurances from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern

7

District of Pennsylvania that all individuals detained at

8

Philadelphia International Airport under the Executive Order

9

would be admitted to the United States and released from

10

custody on Sunday, January 29, 2017;

11

j. DHS’s ‘Response to Recent Litigation’ statement, issued on

12

January 29, 2017;21

13

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

14

Permanent Residents Into the United States,’ issued on January

15

29, 2017;[22]

16

l. DHS’s ‘Statement on Compliance with Court Orders and the

17

President’s Executive Order,’ issued on January 29, 2017;23 and

18 19 The following footnote was included for reference: “Temporary Restraining

19 Order, Tootkaboni v. Trump, No. 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6-TRO-Jan-29-2017.pdf.”

20 20 The following footnote was included for reference: “Order, Vayeghan v. Trump,

21

No. CV 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/vayeghan_-_order_re_tro.pdf.”

22 21 The following footnote was included for reference: “Department of Homeland Security Response to Recent Litigation, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29,
23 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homelandsecurity-response-recent-litigation.”

24 22 See Statement By Secretary John Kelly On The Entry Of Lawful Permanent

25

Residents Into The United States, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/statement-secretary-john-kelly-

26

entry-lawful-permanent-residents-united-states. 23 The following footnote was included for reference: “DHS Statement On

27 Compliance With Court Orders And The President’s Executive Order, DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Jan. 29, 2017), available at
28 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/dhs-statement-compliance-court-orders-andpresidents-executive-order.”

9 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:10

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

m. Any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding

2

the Executive Order on or after January 27, 2017.

3

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

4

subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an

5

enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local

6

International Airports pursuant to the Executive Order, including:

7

a. The total number of individuals who remain detained or subject

8

to secondary screening, extending questioning, an enforcement

9

examination, or consideration for a waiver at Local International

10

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

11

which this request is processed; and

12

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

13

subjected to secondary screening, extending questioning, an

14

enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver for any

15

length of time at Local International Airports since January 27,

16

2017, including the number of individuals who have been

17

i. released,

18

ii. transferred into immigration detention, or

19

iii. removed from the United States;

20

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

21

from Local International Airports from January 27, 2017 to date

22

pursuant to the Executive Order;

23

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

24

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

25

green cards who subsequently agreed voluntarily to return; and

26

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

27

personnel shortly’ after President Trump signed the Executive

28

10 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:11

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

Order.”24

2 Exh. A at 6–10.

3

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

4 grounds that there is a “compelling need” for these records under 5 U.S.C. §

5 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II) because the information requested is “urgen[tly]” needed by an

6 organization primarily engaged in disseminating information “to inform the public

7 concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Exh. A at 11.

8

26. The Request provided detail showing that the ACLU is primarily

9 engaged in disseminating information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §

10 552(a)(6)(E)(v), given that a critical and substantial aspect of the ACLU’s mission is

11 to obtain information about government activity, analyze that information, and

12 publish and disseminate that information widely to the press and public. Exh. A at

13 11–12.

14

27. The Request described examples of the ACLU’s information-

15 dissemination function. Exh. A at 12–13.

16

28. The Request also included an application for a fee waiver or limitation

17 under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) on the grounds that disclosure of the requested

18 records is in the public interest and is “likely to contribute significantly to public

19 understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily

20 in the commercial interest of the requester.” In particular, the ACLU emphasized

21 that the Request would significantly contribute to public understanding on a matter

22 of profound public importance about which scant specific information had been

23 made public, i.e., how local CBP Field Offices had enforced, and continue to

24 enforce, the Executive Orders. The Request also made clear that the ACLU plans to

25 24 The following footnote was included for reference: “Protecting the Nation from 26 Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://www.cbp.gov/border27 security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (‘The Executive
Order and the instructions therein were effective at the time of the order’s signing. 28 Guidance was provided to DHS field personnel shortly thereafter.’) (emphasis
added).”
11 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:12

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1 disseminate the information disclosed as a result of the Request to the public at no

2 cost. Exh. A at 16.

3

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

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

5 news media” and the records are not sought for commercial use, given the ACLU’s

6 non-profit mission and substantial activities to publish information for dissemination

7 to the public, as discussed in greater detail in ¶ 27 above. Exh. A at 17–18.

8

30. The FOIA Division at CBP Headquarters in Washington, D.C. received

9 the Request on February 6, 2017. See Exhibit B-1. CBP’s Los Angeles Field Office

10 received the Request on February 7, 2017. See Exhibit B-2.

11

31. To date, CBP has not acknowledged receipt of the Request.

12

32. As of April 12, 2017, more than 20 days (excepting Saturdays,

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

14

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

15 Plaintiffs of a determination as to whether Defendants will comply with the Request.

16

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

17 limit provision of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have

18 exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the Request under 5 U.S.C.

19 § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
20 21

Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination Within 20 Business Days

22

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

23 through 34 above, inclusive.

24

36. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to

25 comply with a request within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal

26 public holidays) after receiving the request, and also have a legal duty to

27 immediately notify a requester of the agency’s determination and the reasons

28 therefor.

12 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:13

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

37. Defendants’ failure to determine whether to comply with the Request

2 within 20 business days after receiving it violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i),

3 and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.

4

Violation of FOIA for Failure

5

to Make Records Available

6

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

7 through 34 above, inclusive.

8

39. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the specific agency

9 records requested on February 2, 2017, and there exists no legal basis for

10 Defendants’ failure to promptly make the requested records available to Plaintiffs,

11 their members, and the public.

12

40. Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by

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

14 promulgated thereunder.

15

41. On information and belief, Defendants currently have possession,

16 custody or control of the requested records.

17

18

Violation of FOIA for Failure to Provide a Determination As To

19

Expedited Processing Within 10 Days

20

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

21 through 34 above, inclusive.

22

43. Defendants have a legal duty under FOIA to determine whether to

23 provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to

24 Plaintiffs, within 10 days after the date of the Request.

25

44. Defendants’ failure determine whether to provide expedited processing

26 and to provide notice of that determination to Plaintiffs within 10 days after the date

27 of the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii)(I), and applicable

28 regulations promulgated thereunder.

13 FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:14

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1

45. Because Defendants have not provided a complete response to the

2 Request, this Court has jurisdiction under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) to

3 review Defendants’ failure to make a determination concerning Plaintiffs’ request

4 for expedited processing.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court award them the following

6 relief:

7

1. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by failing to determine

8 whether to comply with the Request within 20 business days and by failing to

9 immediately thereafter notify Plaintiffs of such determination and the reasons

10 therefor;

11

2. Declare that Defendants violated FOIA by unlawfully withholding the

12 requested records;

13

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

14 to provide expedited processing, and to provide notice of that determination to

15 Plaintiffs, within 10 days;

16

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

17 public and make copies immediately available to Plaintiffs without charge for any

18 search or duplication fees, or, in the alternative, provide for expedited proceedings

19 to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ rights under FOIA;

20

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

21

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

22 DATED this 12th day of April, 2017.

23

Respectfully submitted,

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
24

25 26 27 28
FOIA COMPLAINT
4825-3945-4278v.1 0050033-000045

By: /s/ Thomas R. Burke_______ Thomas R. Burke
Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA
14

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:15

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:16

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:17

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 41 Page ID #:18

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 41 Page ID #:19

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 20 of 41 Page ID #:20

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 21 of 41 Page ID #:21

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 22 of 41 Page ID #:22

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 23 of 41 Page ID #:23

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 24 of 41 Page ID #:24

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 25 of 41 Page ID #:25

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 26 of 41 Page ID #:26

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 27 of 41 Page ID #:27

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 28 of 41 Page ID #:28

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 29 of 41 Page ID #:29

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 30 of 41 Page ID #:30

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 31 of 41 Page ID #:31

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 32 of 41 Page ID #:32

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 33 of 41 Page ID #:33

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 34 of 41 Page ID #:34

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 35 of 41 Page ID #:35

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 36 of 41 Page ID #:36

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 37 of 41 Page ID #:37

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 38 of 41 Page ID #:38

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 39 of 41 Page ID #:39

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 40 of 41 Page ID #:40

Case 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS Document 1 Filed 04/12/17 Page 41 of 41 Page ID #:41

 
 Case 2:17-cvC-0a2s7e7M8-DBLRNOo-A. 2S78D6ocDuomceunmt e2n8t 8F8ileFdil0e8d/0038//1072/1P7agPea1geof15of P5age ID #:287

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
8/3/2017
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DD BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS

REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769

MDL No. 2786 2:17-cv-02778-BRO-AS

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

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.

Case 2:17-cvC-0a2s7e7M8-DBLRNOo-A. 2S78D6ocDuomceunmt e2n8t 8F8ileFdil0e8d/0038//1072/1P7agPea2geof25of P5age ID #:288
-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.

Case 2:17-cvC-0a2s7e7M8-DBLRNOo-A. 2S78D6ocDuomceunmt e2n8t 8F8ileFdil0e8d/0038//1072/1P7agPea3geof35of P5age ID #:289
-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

Case 2:17-cvC-0a2s7e7M8-DBLRNOo-A. 2S78D6ocDuomceunmt e2n8t 8F8ileFdil0e8d/0038//1072/1P7agPea4geof45of P5age ID #:290

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

Case 2:17-cvC-0a2s7e7M8-DBLRNOo-A. 2S78D6ocDuomceunmt e2n8t 8F8ileFdil0e8d/0038//1072/1P7agPea5geof55of P5age ID #:291
- 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-02778-RHW-AS Document 84 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:525

1 THOMAS R. BURKE (State Bar No. 141930) thomasburke@dwt.com
2 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500
4 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599

5 BRENDAN N. CHARNEY (CA State Bar No. 293378) brendancharney@dwt.com
6 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN
10 CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN
16 CALIFORNIA, et al.,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

19 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,
20 Defendants.
21

Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL ([Proposed] Order Filed Concurrently) Assigned to the Hon. Robert H. Whaley

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) 4842-0112-3226v.1 0201195-000004

Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 84 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:526

1

STIPULATION

2

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties, by and through their

3 respective counsel, hereby stipulate that all claims against Defendants U.S.

4 Department Of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection in this

5 matter shall hereby be dismissed with prejudice, and that the Order below

6 dismissing those claims may be entered.

7 SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

8

9 DATED: June 19, 2019 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
DATED: June 19, 2019 17 18 19 20 21

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE BRENDAN N. CHARNEY
By:/s/ Thomas R. Burke Thomas R. Burke
Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General Civil Division
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Director Federal Programs Branch

22 By:/s/ Matthew Skurnik

23

Matthew Skurnik

24

Trial Attorney

25

Attorneys for Defendants U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

26

SECURITY AND U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

27

28

1
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) 4842-0112-3226v.1 0201195-000004

Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 84 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:527

1

FILER’S ATTESTATION

2

I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been

3 obtained from all signatories pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3). I declare under

4 penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

5 is true and correct. Executed on June 19, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

6 7 DATED: June 19, 2019
8

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP THOMAS R. BURKE BRENDAN N. CHARNEY

9

By:/s/ Thomas R. Burke

10

Thomas R. Burke

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

12

UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN CIVIL

13

LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) 4842-0112-3226v.1 0201195-000004

Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 84-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:528

1 THOMAS R. BURKE (State Bar No. 141930)

2

thomasburke@dwt.com DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

3

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111

4

Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599

5 BRENDAN N. CHARNEY (CA State Bar No. 293378)

6

brendancharney@dwt.com DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

7

865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566

8 Telephone: (213) 633-6800

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF

10

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEVADA

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

16

UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

19 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 20 SECURITY, et al.,

21

Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Assigned to the Hon. Robert H. Whaley

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) 4842-0112-3226v.1 0201195-000004

Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 84-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:529

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

THIS MATTER having come on before the above-entitled court on the above

3 stipulation of the parties through their counsel of record, and good cause appearing

4 therefore, now, it is hereby

5

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims alleged herein

6 against Defendants U.S. Department Of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and

7 Border Protection be dismissed with prejudice.

8

9

10

11

Dated: _________________.

12

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 2:17-cv-2778 (RHW) 4842-0112-3226v.1 0201195-000004

 
 Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 87 Filed 06/24/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:535

JS-6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 10 UNION OF SOUTHERN 11 CALIFORNIA, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:17-CV-2778-RHW ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

13 v.

14

15

UNITED STATES DEPERTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et

16 al.,

17

18 Defendants.

19

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Request for Dismissal, ECF No.

20 84. In their Stipulated Request, the parties agree that, pursuant to Federal Rule of

21 Civil Procedure 41, all claims against the Defendants in this matter should be

22 dismissed with prejudice. Id.

23

The Court, having reviewed the record and the parties’ Stipulated Request

24 for Dismissal, ECF No. 84, has found good cause to grant the Stipulation and

25 dismiss this matter with prejudice.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

27

1. The parties’ Stipulated Request for Dismissal, ECF No. 84, is

28 GRANTED.

ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL ~ 1

Case 2:17-cv-02778-RHW-AS Document 87 Filed 06/24/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:536

1

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

2

3. All future dates on the calendar are STRICKEN.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

4 Order and forward copies to counsel and close the file.

5

DATED this 24th day of June, 2019.

6

s/Robert H. Whaley

7

ROBERT H. WHALEY Senior United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL ~ 2

 
 ACCO,(ASx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17−cv−02778−RHW−AS

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Robert H. Whaley Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/12/2017 Date Terminated: 06/24/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

represented by Amy M Rose ACLU of Nevada Foundation 601 South Rancho Drive Suite B−11 Las Vegas, NV 89106 702−366−1536 Fax: 702−366−1331 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Nathaniel Charney Davis Wright Termaine LLP 865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017−2566 213−633−6800 Fax: 213−633−6899 Email: brendancharney@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devon Erickson Porter ACLU Fountation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5224 Email: devon.porter@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitra Ebadolahi ACLU foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−232−2121 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org TERMINATED: 08/17/2017

Mohammad K Tajsar ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.977.9500 Fax: 213.977.5297 Email: MTajsar@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eight Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada
V. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: pbibring@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Rohlfs Burke Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111−3834 415−276−6500 Fax: 415−276−6599 Email: thomasburke@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy M Rose (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan Nathaniel Charney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devon Erickson Porter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitra Ebadolahi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/17/2017
Mohammad K Tajsar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Bibring (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Rohlfs Burke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Skurnik US Department of Justice Civil Division − Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202−616−8188 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: matthew.skurnik@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chetan A Patil US Department of Justice Civil Division − Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−4968

Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/13/2017
Danielle Wolfson Young US Department of Justice Civil Division − Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−2035 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: danielle.young2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/07/2018
Matthew Berns US Department of Justice Civil Division − Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−8016 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/21/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Skurnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chetan A Patil (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2017
Danielle Wolfson Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2018
Matthew Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−19672354 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. (Attorney Thomas Rohlfs Burke added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada(pty:pla), Attorney Thomas Rohlfs Burke added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California(pty:pla))(Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV−71) 2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
4 Notice of Party with Pecuinary Interest and Corporate Disclosure Statement NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada,

04/12/2017
04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/13/2017 04/19/2017 04/21/2017
04/25/2017 05/03/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/10/2017

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
5 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Amy M. Rose to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−1967 4974) filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Pro Hac Vice) (Attorney Brendan Nathaniel Charney added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada(pty:pla), Attorney Brendan Nathaniel Charney added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California(pty:pla)) (Charney, Brendan) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Beverly Reid OConnell and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (esa) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
8 30 DAY Summons issued re Complaint 1 as to defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (esa) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
9 STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES upon filing of the complaint by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. (rfi) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
10 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: granting 5 Non−Resident Attorney Amy Rose APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, designating Brendan N Charney as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
11 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, re Summons Request 3 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 Notice of Filing Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint on U.S. Attorney for Central District of California served on April 13, 2017. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, re Summons Request 3 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 Notice of Filing Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint served on April 13, 2017 and April 24, 2017. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
13 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Chetan A Patil on behalf of Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attorney Chetan A Patil added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Chetan A Patil added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft))(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
14 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Matthew Berns on behalf of Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attorney Matthew Berns added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew Berns added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft))(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
15 NOTICE of Motion filed with the JPML to Transfer Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Transfer Motion, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Supporting Memorandum, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Schedule of Actions)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
16 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Extend Time to File Answer to 6/29/2017 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/12/2017 05/17/2017 05/31/2017
06/05/2017 06/06/2017 06/06/2017 06/07/2017 06/12/2017 06/19/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017
08/03/2017 08/17/2017

17 ORDER by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: Upon consideration of Defendants' Unopposed Ex Parte Application, and for good cause showing, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is extended to June 29, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 (rfi) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Defendants' Motion to Transfer filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Motion set for hearing on 6/26/2017 at 01:30 PM before Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
19 NOTICE of Filing Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer to District of Columbia for Consolidation filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Plaintiffs, 42 American Civil Liberties Union Affiliates, In Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Transfer to District of Columbia for Consolidation)(Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
20 Opposition Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Defendants' Motion to Transfer 18 Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
21 NOTICE 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)
22 NOTICE of Errata filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Notice of Errata Concerning Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
23 NOTICE of Decision: Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceeding filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
24 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Defendants' Motion to Transfer 18 filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
25 NOTICE of Decision: Motion to Stay in Related Case filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 District of Maine Order)(Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
26 NOTICE of Decision: Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
27 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO TRANSFER 18 The Court GRANTS Defendants Motion. The Court hereby STAYS this Action for sixty (60) days. The parties shall submit a joint report to apprise the Court of this matters status upon either (1) the JPMLs ruling on the Transfer Motion, or (2) the expiration of the 60−day stay, whichever comes first. The hearingscheduled for June 26, 2017 is hereby VACATED.IT IS SO ORDERED. (rfi) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
28 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL 2786, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied. (jp) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
29 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Mohammad K Tajsar counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Adding Mohammad Tajsar as counsel of

08/17/2017
08/18/2017 08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/22/2017
08/29/2017 08/30/2017 09/11/2017 09/14/2017 11/03/2017
11/06/2017

record for Plaintiffs American Civl Liberties Union of Southern California, et al. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, et al.. (Attorney Mohammad K Tajsar added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada(pty:pla), Attorney Mohammad K Tajsar added to party American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California(pty:pla))(Tajsar, Mohammad) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
30 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Mitra Ebadolahi counsel for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Mitra Ebadolahi is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; American Civil Union of Nevada. (Ebadolahi, Mitra) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
31 NOTICE Joint Report filed by defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
32 NOTICE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell re: Joint Report 31 The Court ORDERS that the Stay in this action is lifted. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to the Complaint no later than August 29, 2017. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rfi) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/21/2017)
33 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Danielle Wolfson Young on behalf of Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Attorney Danielle Wolfson Young added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Danielle Wolfson Young added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft))(Young, Danielle) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
34 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Matthew Berns counsel for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Matthew J. Berns is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
35 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 .(Young, Danielle) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
36 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. This case has been assigned to Judge Beverly Reid OConnell. This matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on 11/20/2017 at 01:30 PM before Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. (jp) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
37 REQUEST for Leave of Danielle W. Young to Appear for Scheduling Conference by Telephone filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Young, Danielle) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
38 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: The Court ORDERS that the request is granted and Danielle W. Young shall be permitted to appear telephonically. 37 (rfi) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
39 ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE (#17−110) approved by Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Pursuant to the directive of the Chief U.S. District Judge and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the following cases are ordered transferred from the calendar of Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell to the calendar of Judge Robert H. Whaley for all further proceedings. Case now reads as 2:17−cv−02778 RHW(ASx). (rn) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
40 TEXT ONLY ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Scheduling Conference, set for 11/20/2017, at 1:30 PM, is hereby CONTINUED to 12/1/2017, at 10:00 AM, before Judge Robert H. Whaley, in Courtroom 5B, U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Counsel shall appear on this new date and time. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS

11/07/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017
11/17/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/21/2017 11/29/2017 12/01/2017 12/04/2017 12/06/2017

ENTRY. (jre) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
41 TEXT ONLY ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Robert H. Whaley: The Scheduling Conference, set for 12/1/2017, at 10:00 AM, is hereby MOVED in location from Courtroom 5B to Courtroom 6C, 6th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Counsel shall appear in Courtroom 6C on 12/1/2017, at 10:00 AM. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
42 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial TBD, filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.. (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
43 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan 42 . The following error(s) was/were found: Case number is incorrect or missing. Other error(s) with document(s): The new case number is now 2:17cv02778−RHW (ASx). Please make sure to include the new judge initials on all future documents. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
44 TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Scheduling Conference set for 12/1/2017 at 10:00 AM, is hereby CONTINUED BY ONE HOUR to 12/1/2017, at 11:00 AM, before Judge Robert H. Whaley, in Courtroom 6C, 6th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Counsel shall appear on this date and new time. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
45 REQUEST for Leave of Defendants' Counsel to Appear for Conference Telephonically U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Young, Danielle) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
46 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley: GRANTING 45 Motion for Leave of Danielle W. Young and Chetan A. Patil as Attorneys to Appear Telphonically for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (shb) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
47 REQUEST for Order for Request for Relief from Lead Counsel Requirement filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Request set for hearing on 12/1/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
48 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTFFS' REQUEST FOR RELEF FROM LEAD COUNSEL REQUIREMENT 47 by Judge Robert H. Whaley. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' request for relief, ECF No. 47, is GRANTED. 2. Associate counsel Brendan N. Charney is permitted to appear on behalf of lead counsel Thomas R. Burke at the scheduling conference on December 1, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. (jre) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
49 MINUTES OF IN COURT AND TELEPHONIC Scheduling Conference held before Judge Robert H. Whaley. The COURT sets this matter on December 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. File any factual affidavits by next Wednesday. File replies by next Friday. The COURT gives counsel preliminary understanding. Court Reporter: Victoria Valine. (shb) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
50 TEXT ONLY ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Robert H. Whaley: The hearing in this action set for 12/11/2017, at 11:00 am, shall take place in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 350. W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Counsel shall appear at this location for hearing. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
51 TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The continued Scheduling Conference and hearing re discovery, set for 12/11/2017, at 11:00 AM, shall now take place in Courtroom 6C, 6th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles,

12/06/2017 12/08/2017 12/08/2017
12/08/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017
03/14/2018 03/16/2018
05/11/2018

CA 90012. Counsel shall appear at this new location. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jre) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
52 NOTICE of DECLARATION FILING U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Exhibit 1 (Patrick Howard))(Young, Danielle) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
53 DECLARATION of Brendan Charney in Support of Plaintiffs' Request for a Production Order filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Charney, Brendan) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
54 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Matthew Skurnik counsel for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Adding Matthew Skurnik as counsel of record for Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Attorney Matthew Skurnik added to party U.S. Customs and Border Protection(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew Skurnik added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft))(Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
55 NOTICE of Errata re Exhibit C to the Declaration of Brendan Charney in Support of Plaintiffs' Request for a Production Order filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Charney, Brendan) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
56 REQUEST for Order for Joint Request to Seal filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Request set for hearing on 12/11/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Charney, Brendan) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
57 MINUTES OF MOTION Hearing 56 held before Judge Robert H. Whaley: COURT addresses counsel and summarizes understanding of case. 1,400 documents. COURT will issue an Order. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (shb) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
58 ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL 56 by Judge Robert H. Whaley. See document for complete details. (jre) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
59 DISREGARD PER 60 SEE 61 − ORDER SETTING PRODUCTION SCHEDULE by Judge Robert H. Whaley. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre) Modified on 12/13/2017 (jre). (Entered: 12/12/2017)
60 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR Re: Order at 59 . Document at 59 was not served upon the parties by CM/ECF. The clerk will refile the document to ensureproper service upon the parties. Docket entry 59 should be disregarded. (jre) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
61 ORDER SETTING PRODUCTION SCHEDULE by Judge Robert H. Whaley. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER AND COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
62 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Chetan A Patil counsel for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Chetan A. Patil is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Patil, Chetan) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
63 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
64 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. In consideration of the statements presented in the stipulation and its own docket, the proceedings will be CONTINUED until May 11, 2018. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (yl) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
65 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Burke,

05/15/2018 07/09/2018 07/25/2018 08/30/2018 09/07/2018
09/11/2018 10/29/2018 11/05/2018 12/06/2018 01/08/2019 01/18/2019 01/28/2019 01/29/2019

Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
66 ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. In consideration of the statements presented in the Joint Status Report and its own docket, the proceedings shall be CONTINUED until July 10, 2018. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
67 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
68 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. In consideration of the statements presented in the Joint Status Report and its own docket, the proceedings shall be CONTINUED until August 30, 2018. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
69 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
70 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Danielle Wolfson Young counsel for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Danielle Wolfson Young is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Young, Danielle) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
71 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. In consideration of the statements presented in the Joint Status Report and its own docket, the proceedings shall be CONTINUED until October 29, 2018. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
72 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
73 ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE by Judge Robert H. Whaley. The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. IT IS SO ORDERED: Parties joint request for a continuance, ECF No. 72, is GRANTED. The proceedings shall be CONTINUED until January 11, 2019. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
74 NOTICE of Change of address by Matthew Skurnik attorney for Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Changing attorneys address to 1100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
75 MOTION WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL E−FILED 1−28−19. EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Restoration of Appropriations filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Skurnik, Matthew) Modified on 1/29/2019 (shb). (Entered: 01/08/2019)
76 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley, re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Restoration of Appropriations 75 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendants Ex Parte Application for Stay in Light of Lapse of Appropriations, ECF No. 75, no later than January 29, 2019. (shb) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
77 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Stay Case 75 filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
78 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

01/29/2019 02/06/2019
03/29/2019 04/02/2019 05/28/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019 06/24/2019
06/24/2019

79 REPLY in Opposition EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Restoration of Appropriations 75 Plaintiffs' Response to Ex Parte Application for Stay filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Charney, Brendan) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
80 ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE by Judge Robert H. Whaley, 78 The Court finds good reason to GRANT this request. Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED: 1. Parties joint request for a continuance, ECF No. 78, is GRANTED. 2. The proceedings shall be CONTINUED until March 29, 2019. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (yl) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
81 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
82 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley: IT IS SO ORDERED: 1. Parties joint request for a continuance, ECF No. 81, is GRANTED. 2. The proceedings shall be CONTINUED until May 28, 2019. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
83 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) filed by Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Skurnik, Matthew) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
84 STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Settlement filed by Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Burke, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
85 ORDER by Judge Robert H. Whaley, re Status Report 83 . The proceedings shall be CONTINUED until July 29, 2019. The parties shall file an updated Joint Status Report on or before this date. (shb) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
86 Notice of Electronic Filing re Order, Set/Reset Deadlines 85 e−mailed to Amy M. Rose bounced due to invalid email address. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrey) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/24/2019)
87 ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Robert H. Whaley, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case With Prejudice 84 . Case Terminated. Made JS−6. (shb) (Entered: 06/25/2019)