Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 35

1 Anne Lai* alai@law.uci.edu
2 Sameer Ashar** sashar@law.uci.edu
3 University of California, Irvine School of Law – Immigrant Rights Clinic
4 401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92616-5479
5 Telephone: (949) 824-9894 Facsimile: (949) 824-2747
6 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
7 dpochoda@acluaz.org ACLU Foundation of Arizona
8 3707 North 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014
9 Telephone: (602) 650-1854
10 * Pro hac vice application pending
11 **Pro hac vice application forthcoming
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13

Jessica Karp** jkarp@ndlon.org National Day Labor Organizing Network 675 S. Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 380-2785
Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado (SBA No. 027076) rybarra@stanfordalumni.org Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra
Maldonado, PLC 2637 North 16th St., Unit 1 Phoenix, AZ 85006 Telephone: (602) 910-4040

14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

16

17

Puente Arizona and Susan E. FrederickGray, on behalf of themselves and all

18

others similarly situated; Sara Cervantes

Arreola; and Guadalupe Arredondo,

No. _________________________

19 20 v.

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21 Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa

22 County, Arizona, in his official capacity; CLASS ACTION Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County

23

Attorney, in his official capacity; Maricopa County, Arizona; and Robert

24

Halliday, Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in his

25 official capacity,

26

Defendants.

27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 35

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action challenges two state laws, Arizona House Bill 2779 (“H.B.

3 2779”), passed in 2007, and Arizona House Bill 2745 (“H.B. 2745”), passed in 2008,

4 which sought, in relevant part, to criminally punish individuals who do not have federal

5 authorization to work in the United States for the act of securing employment. Both

6 measures were promulgated as part of a broader platform favored by Arizona nativists to

7 make life so difficult for immigrants coming from Mexico and Latin America that they

8 would “self-deport.”

9

2. The effect of these measures has been to turn individuals such as Plaintiff

10 Sara Cervantes Arreola—who worked for years at a grocery store on Phoenix’s west

11 side to support her young son—into convicted felons. Ms. Cervantes Arreola was

12 arrested at work in January 2013 for using identifying information of a fictitious person,

13 something she needed to do in order to get the job.

14

3. Arizona entered uncharted territory as a state when it revised its identity

15 theft laws to achieve this aim. Specifically, H.B. 2779, also called the “Legal Arizona

16 Workers Act,” created a new offense of aggravated identity theft to use the information

17 of “another person, including a real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain

18 employment.” A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3). H.B. 2745 supplemented the Legal Arizona

19 Workers Act by defining the offense of identity theft to include use of another’s

20 information, real or fictitious, “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.” § 13-

21 2008(A).

22

4. For the past six years, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (the

23 “MCSO”) and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (the “MCAO”) have used the

24 above-described provisions in A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) (collectively

25 referred to as the “worker identity provisions”) to carry out a campaign of workplace

26 raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Their enforcement campaign has separated

27 breadwinners from their families, suppressed workers’ rights, eroded the social fabric of

28 the community, and ultimately harmed many U.S. citizens as well as immigrants.

2

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 35

1 Taxpayer funds have been improperly diverted from essential public services to jail and

2 prosecute workers. And organizations such as Plaintiff Puente Arizona have had to

3 respond to the fallout of the raids by providing humanitarian and advocacy assistance to

4 affected families.

5

5. Arizona’s effort to single out employment by undocumented workers

6 intrudes upon an area of exclusive federal control. The worker identity provisions

7 interfere and conflict with federal laws established by Congress and implemented by the

8 executive branch regulating immigration and employment, and thus violate the

9 Supremacy Clause. They also discriminate on the basis of alienage in violation of the

10 Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

11

6. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to

12 prevent further arrests and prosecutions under the worker identity provisions and an

13 expungement of records for the two Plaintiffs who have been improperly convicted.

14

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

7. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the laws and Constitution of

17 the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

18 and 1343. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

19 and 2202.

20

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All Defendants are sued in

21 their official capacity and their official places of business are located within this District.

22 A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this

23 District.

24

25

PARTIES

26 Plaintiffs

27

9. Plaintiff Puente Arizona (“Puente”) is a grassroots membership

28 organization based in Phoenix. Its mission is to promote justice, human dignity, non-

3

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 4 of 35

1 violence and interdependence. It aims to develop, educate, and empower migrant

2 communities, and to enhance the quality of life of migrants. Puente provides free

3 English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness

4 training, educational programs for children, and other services to the community. The

5 arrests and prosecutions of workers under A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3)

6 have frustrated Puente’s mission by creating a climate of fear and separating parents,

7 community leaders, and students from those who depend on them. Puente has been

8 forced to cut back on its services and divert scarce resources in order to assist affected

9 workers and their families. In addition, some members of Puente are currently at risk of

10 being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted under the worker identity

11 provisions.

12

10. Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola is a resident of Glendale, Arizona and

13 mother of a 5-year-old son. From 2007 to 2013, Ms. Cervantes worked up to 14 hours a

14 day, five days a week in the produce department at Lam’s Supermarket to provide for

15 her family. On January 17, 2013, she was arrested at work by the MSCO during a

16 workplace raid for using the identity of a fictitious person to obtain employment. On

17 March 18, 2013, she pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, a Class 3 felony, under

18 A.R.S. § 13-2009.

19

11. Plaintiff Guadalupe Arredondo is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and the

20 mother of two daughters, ages 5 and 11. From 2007 until 2013, Ms. Arredondo

21 supported her family by working at the Bazzill Basics Paper factory, where she prepared

22 paper for shipping. On February 14, 2013, she was arrested at work by MCSO deputies

23 for using a false identity to obtain employment. On or around May 3, 2013, she pled

24 guilty to identity theft, a Class 4 felony, under A.R.S. § 13-2008.

25

12. Plaintiff Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is the Lead Minister of the

26 Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Phoenix, Arizona. She works in, resides in,

27 owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa County. Upon information and

28 belief, Defendants are using county taxes paid by Plaintiff Frederick-Gray to enforce

4

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 5 of 35

1 A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers. Plaintiff

2 Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an illegal expenditure

3 of county taxpayer funds.

4 Defendants

5

13. Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (“Arpaio”) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa

6 County, Arizona. He is the final policymaker for Maricopa County in the area of law

7 enforcement, and is responsible for setting the policies, practices and customs of the

8 MCSO, including those pertaining to the agency’s enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A)

9 and 13-2009(A)(3). Defendant Arpaio is sued in his official capacity.

10

14. Defendant Bill Montgomery (“Montgomery”) is the elected County

11 Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Montgomery is the chief official

12 responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of felonies within Maricopa County,

13 including A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), as well as misdemeanors that occur

14 in unincorporated areas. Defendant Montgomery is the final policymaker for Maricopa

15 County on matters of prosecution. He is sued in his official capacity.

16

15. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision formed and

17 designated as such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Maricopa County

18 is liable for the practices and policies of Defendants Arpaio and Montgomery. The County

19 has and continues to acquiesce in and, through local tax revenues, finance the enforcement

20 of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) as described in this Complaint.

21

16. Defendant Robert Halliday is the Director of the Arizona Department of

22 Public Safety (“DPS”). DPS is responsible for collecting, storing and disseminating

23 criminal history records and related criminal justice information for the state of Arizona.

24 Defendant Halliday is sued in his official capacity.

25 //

26 //

27 //

28

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 6 of 35

1

Exclusive Federal Control over Immigration and Employment Verification

2

17. More than 30 years before Arizona sought to regulate the employment of

3 unauthorized immigrants through H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, Congress enacted the

4 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), Pub. L. 99-603, “a

5 comprehensive framework for combatting the employment of illegal aliens.” Arizona v.

6 United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2504 (2012) (internal quotation omitted).

7

18. IRCA added to an already extensive system of federal laws addressing the

8 entry, expulsion and treatment of immigrants in the Immigration and Nationality Act

9 (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

10

19. The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive, plenary power

11 over immigration matters, stating that the federal government may “establish a uniform

12 Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4, and “regulate Commerce with

13 foreign Nations,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

14

20. Congress’s comprehensive system of federal laws governing immigration

15 generally leaves no room for supplemental or parallel state laws.

16

21. In passing IRCA, Congress balanced numerous factors in settling on a

17 scheme for the regulation of immigration and employment that imposed a graduated

18 series of civil and criminal sanctions on employers for the knowing employment of

19 unauthorized workers. Congress located this new scheme in the immigration statutes.

20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a et seq.

21

22. The comprehensive framework created by Congress does not impose

22 criminal sanctions on the employee side for unauthorized work. Proposals to make

23 seeking or engaging in unauthorized work a criminal offense were introduced and

24 debated. However, Congress decided not to adopt them.

25

23. As the Supreme Court recently recognized, “IRCA's framework reflects a

26 considered judgment that making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized

27 work—aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their

28

6

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 35

1 removable status—would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives.” Arizona,

2 132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.

3

24. Committee reports accompanying IRCA confirmed Congress’s view that

4 unauthorized workers should not be treated as severely as the employers that hire them.

5 They recognized that there are “severe economic ‘push factors’ that lead aliens to enter

6 the country illegally” and that “many who enter illegally do so for the best of motives—

7 to seek a better life for themselves and their families.” H.R. Rep. 99-682, part 1, at 46,

8 63; see also S. Rep. No. 99-132, at 3.

9

25. Further, in IRCA, Congress established a detailed procedure by which

10 employers would have to verify prospective employees’ eligibility for employment. 8

11 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). This procedure involves the inspection of certain documents to

12 confirm identity and employment eligibility and completion of a Form I-9, Employment

13 Eligibility Verification Form. Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2.

14

26. Anticipating that some might respond to the new verification system by

15 relying on false documents or making false statements, Congress also endowed federal

16 authorities with certain tools to combat document fraud.

17

27. Section 103 of IRCA amended 18 U.S.C. § 1546 pertaining to “Fraud and

18 misuse of visas, permits, and other documents” to impose a criminal penalty for the use

19 of a false identification document or making of a false attestation for purposes of

20 satisfying the employment verification requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b). Section 103

21 also expanded the prohibition on selling, making or using fraudulent immigration

22 documents to include those documents used “as evidence of authorized . . . employment

23 in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

24

28. In addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1546, Congress specifically designated several

25 existing federal criminal statutes that could be applied to fraud in the employment

26 verification process. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) (listing applicable statutes, consisting of

27 Title 18, Sections 1001 [false statements], 1028 [fraud in connection with identity

28 documents], 1546 and 1621 [perjury]).

7

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 8 of 35

1

29. Congress has also created certain civil penalties for document fraud. 8

2 U.S.C. §1324c allows an administrative law judge to impose a fine, after a hearing, of

3 $250-$2,000 on any person or entity who knowingly “forge[s],” “use[s]” or “attempt[s]

4 to use” a document not belonging to the possessor to satisfy the requirements of the

5 INA, including for purposes of obtaining employment. 8 U.S.C. §§1324c(a)(1)-(4),

6 1324c(d).

7

30. Finally, immigration consequences can attach to document fraud in the

8 employment verification process. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) (making “an

9 alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title []

10 deportable”); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (making those who make false claims to

11 citizenship, including for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, inadmissible and thus ineligible

12 for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident). Conversely, federal

13 authorities may decide to forego sanctions, for example, in cases where a worker is the

14 victim of labor trafficking, other labor violations or could otherwise be helpful to a law

15 enforcement investigation. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(T), 1101(a)(15)(U).

16

31. Congress made a point to circumscribe punishment of fraud in the

17 employment verification process to enforcement of the immigration statutes and the

18 several criminal statutes listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5)

19 (limiting use of the “[Form I-9] attestation form . . . and any information contained in or

20 appended to such forms” to “enforcement of this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546,

21 and 1621 of Title 18”) and 1324a(d)(2)(F) (requiring that any changes to the

22 employment verification system continue to meet the requirement that it “not be used for

23 law enforcement purposes, other than for enforcement of this chapter or sections 1001,

24 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18). The limitation on the use of the attestation form

25 extends to “copies or electronic images of documents . . . used to verify an individual’s

26 identity or employment eligibility.” 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(4).

27

32. Congress also included other language reinforcing the limitations on the

28 use of the employment verification system. It included sections titled “Limited use of

8

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 9 of 35

1 system,” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(d)(2)(C), “Restrictions on use of new documents,” 8 U.S.C. §

2 1324a(d)(2)(G), and limited the “Copying of documentation permitted.” 8 U.S.C. §

3 1324a(b)(4).

4

33. In sum, in establishing the new employer sanctions regime in IRCA,

5 Congress “made clear” that the verification process created by the legislation and the

6 “information employees submit to show their work status” was to be used to enforce

7 federal law and not for any other purpose. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.

8

34. The federal government’s creation of a pervasive, complex array of civil,

9 criminal and immigration tools to address fraud in the employment verification process

10 further manifests its purpose to preclude any state or local regulation on the same

11 subject. Congress has expressed much more than a “peripheral concern” with the issue,

12 De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 360 (1976); indeed, it has fully occupied the field.

13

Arizona Legislature Accedes to Nativist Agenda, Amends Identity Theft Laws

14

35. Beginning in 2004, citizen groups in Arizona began to converge around a

15 platform of protecting the interests of “natives” against perceived threats posed by the

16 state’s immigrant population.

17

36. These groups, such as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a vigilante

18 activist organization that patrolled the U.S.-Mexico border with guns, called on

19 policymakers to pass restrictionist immigration policies to address what they portrayed

20 to be a crisis in border enforcement.

21

37. The nativist groups found a sympathetic ear in then-Arizona House

22 Representative Russell Pearce, among other elected officials. Pearce regularly interacted

23 with and praised these groups.

24

38. Pearce authored and championed for the passage of Proposition 200, a

25 ballot initiative that would require proof of citizenship in voter registration and limit

26 immigrant families’ access to public benefits. He would go on to author many more

27 measures dealing with immigration over the following six years, first as a representative

28

9

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 10 of 35

1 and then later as a state senator, as part of a comprehensive strategy he called “attrition

2 through enforcement.”

3

39. The goal of “attrition through enforcement” was to make life so difficult

4 for undocumented immigrants and their families that they would “deport themselves.”

5 For example, “attrition through enforcement” was the explicit aim of Pearce’s Senate

6 Bill 1070, an omnibus immigration measure passed in 2010, much of which has since

7 been found to be unconstitutional.

8

40. According to an April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article that

9 Pearce circulated to supporters, the “attrition through enforcement” strategy had

10 different components, such as the enactment of local regulation to discourage

11 immigrants from settling in a location and the aggressive expansion of the role of state

12 and local law enforcement agencies in the apprehension and detention of immigrants.

13 Another element focused on “ending misuse of Social Security and IRS identification

14 numbers, which illegal immigrants1 use to secure jobs . . . .” (emphasis added). A copy

15 of the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

16

41. The Arizona Legislature incorporated this latter aspect of the attrition

17 through enforcement strategy in a Pearce-sponsored bill in 2006, House Bill 2577 (“H.B.

18 2577”).

19

42. H.B. 2577, in relevant part, added a provision to the Arizona criminal code

20 that defined the offense of forgery to include the making or alteration of a written

21 instrument “that is used to obtain employment in this state by a person who is not

22 authorized to work in the United States.” The bill specifically made this type of forgery,

23 targeted at undocumented workers, a Class 3 felony, punishable by up to 7 years, A.R.S.

24

25

26

1 Though Plaintiffs use the terms “illegal immigrants,” “illegal aliens,” “aliens” and “illegals” to quote statements of proponents of the worker identity theft provisions, as

27

well as some court decisions and statutes, they will otherwise refer to the individuals targeted by the provisions as “undocumented” or “unauthorized” immigrants or workers.

28

See generally http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/17/illegal-undocumentedunauthorized-news-media-shift-language-on-immigration/.

10

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 11 of 35

1 §13-702(D), while all other types of forgery would remain Class 4 felonies under the

2 statute.

3

43. To mobilize support for measures like H.B. 2577 in the Legislature, Pearce

4 encouraged and played on the fear and resentment his constituents felt towards

5 immigrants.

6

44. For example, he forwarded a message from two residents of his home

7 district in Mesa advocating for passage of H.B. 2577 that included grievances about “a

8 mass invasion of historic proportions” by “an Hispanic ‘migrant army,’” members of

9 whom were “corrupt[ing] our unifying national language while actively disrespecting

10 our culture, society and country.” A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit

11 2 to this Complaint.

12

45. Pearce has himself discussed the “threat” he believes is posed by

13 immigration from Mexico.

14

46. During a February 6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights

15 Committee hearing, in which he was advocating for H.B. 2577, Pearce proclaimed,

16 incorrectly, that “[Arizona is] number one in the nation in crime, number one!” He

17 explained, “[T]here’s a clear reason for that, and that’s that connection we have to open

18 borders and our failure to secure that border.” Arizona Legislature recording of February

19 6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights Committee hearing, at

20 approximately 8:07 of discussion on H.B. 2577.

21

47. During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April 19, 2006,

22 Pearce remarked that “We have an illegal alien crisis and we all recognize that.” Arizona

23 Legislature recording of April 19, 2006 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, at

24 approximately 11:15 of discussion on H.B. 2577. He further discussed “the Mexican

25 government in their 12th edition of ‘How to Break into America and Get Free Stuff.’” Id.

26 at approximately 14:55.

27

48. Pearce specifically alerted supporters to the phenomenon of individuals

28 using false Social Security numbers to work.

11

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 12 of 35

1

49. In 2006, he forwarded an article that presented the issue as one about,

2 among other things, “illegals” who “smuggle [themselves] across the border and take a

3 job that lawfully belongs to an American.” A copy of the email from Pearce is attached

4 as Exhibit 3 to this Complaint.

5

50. In a 2007 email to a constituent who had advocated for classification of

6 certain “illegals” as “domestic terrorists,” Pearce discussed the “rapidly growing crime”

7 of “illegal aliens stealing identities to get American jobs.” A copy of the email from

8 Pearce is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.

9

51. Although H.B. 2577 passed the Legislature in 2006, it was vetoed by the

10 Governor.

11

52. Pearce made another attempt the next year. In 2007, he introduced H.B.

12 2779, a bill that would eventually come to be known the Legal Arizona Workers Act.

13

53. Section 1 of H.B. 2779 amended Arizona’s aggravated identity theft

14 statute to punish individuals for using the information of “another person, including a

15 real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain employment.” A.R.S. §13-2009(A)(3).

16 Previously, an individual was only punishable under this statute if he or she had bought,

17 manufactured or used the identity of five or more persons, or caused the loss of $3,000

18 or more. H.B. 2779 expanded the grounds of this Class 3 felony to also include the use

19 of false information to work, whether or not the employee used the information of

20 additional persons or caused economic loss to any person or entity.

21

54. By contrast, an individual under 21 years of age who uses false

22 identification to illegally obtain liquor was exempt under the statute and guilty only of a

23 Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months. A.R.S. §§ 13-2009(C); 4-241(L),

24 13-707(A).

25

55. Other aspects of H.B. 2779 required employers to use the basic pilot E-

26 Verify program and imposed sanctions in the form of license suspension on employers

27

28

12

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 13 of 35

1 found to have knowingly employed unauthorized immigrants.2 The full text of the law,

2 as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference.

3

56. Legislators plainly understood that the purpose of H.B. 2779, including the

4 amendments to A.R.S. § 13-2009, was to address the employment of unauthorized

5 immigrants. Their contemporary statements and legislative fact sheets for the bill

6 reflected this purpose. They wanted to do so specifically because they were dissatisfied

7 with the federal government’s handling of the issue.

8

57. During a House Government Committee hearing on February 20, 2007 at

9 which he appeared to discuss H.B. 2779, Pearce urged members to not wait “while we

10 watch the destruction of our country” and “the destruction of neighborhoods” by illegal

11 aliens. Arizona Legislature recording of February 20, 2007 House Government

12 Committee hearing, at approximately 2:55:55. He declared that “the feds have not done

13 their job” to quell what he described as a “national epidemic,” and insisted that

14 “[Arizona] need[s] to step up to the plate . . . .” Id. at approximately 02:56:47 and

15 02:57:54.

16

58. At a June 20, 2007 Conference Committee hearing, Pearce responded to a

17 proposal that the Legislature delay passage of the bill to resolve some outstanding

18 concerns by stating “It’s about time we do something. The public’s tired of waiting . . .

19 The [corresponding ballot] initiative is out there because of the failure of both the federal

20 government and the state government to do their job . . . and it’s sad that [Congress is]

21 working on [amnesty] . . . . This law’s needed whether they do something or not … and .

22 . . securing the borders is needed.” Arizona Legislature recording of June 20, 2007

23 Conference Committee hearing at approximately 00:36:38, 00:38:35 and 00:38:55 of.

24

59. Just two days before the Conference Committee hearing, Pearce had

25 forwarded the April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article identifying

26

27

2 The sanctions on employers later were found permissible under an express savings clause in 8 U.S.C. § 1324. See Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968

28

(2011) (discussing 8 U.S.C. § 1324(h)(2)). There is no savings clause allowing states to impose penalties on employees.

13

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 14 of 35

1 undocumented workers’ use of false Social Security numbers as a target for the “attrition

2 through enforcement” immigration strategy to supporters and, upon information and

3 belief, colleagues in the Legislature. A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as

4 Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

5

60. Other legislators also voiced their frustration with the perceived failures on

6 immigration at the federal level and the need to take the issue into their own hands.

7

61. During a Senate Committee of the Whole hearing on May 23, 2007 Senator

8 Chuck Gray explained that he was supporting H.B. 2779 because it “advances the cause

9 of protecting our citizens against something that the federal government won’t do.”

10 Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,

11 at approximately 01:14:46.

12

62. Proponents of the bill were committed to ensuring that workers under

13 would receive a harsh penalty under the measure, because of their undocumented status

14 and because the provision had to do with immigration.

15

63. Though being unlawfully present is a civil offense under the immigration

16 laws, some legislators seemed to operate under the assumption that it is a crime. For

17 instance, while addressing a proposed amendment to H.B. 2779 during a House

18 Committee of the Whole hearing on March 15, 2007, Representative Bob Robson

19 emphasized, erroneously, that “being in the country illegally is a criminal violation!”

20 Arizona Legislature recording of March 15, 2007 House Committee of the Whole

21 hearing, at approximately 00:32:05.

22

64. When one Representative, Jorge Luis Garcia, proposed that the bill be

23 amended to make the offense a Class 6 rather than a Class 3 felony during the May 23,

24 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing, noting that “there’s a lot of issues out

25 there that certainly are much more serious crimes than working here illegally,” co-

26 sponsor Senator Robert Burns, stated “I guess the issue of the penalty, and whether the

27 penalty fits the crime is certainly a worthwhile debate; however, I think the timing on

28 this particular issue is really critical. At this point, we’re all aware of the turmoil that has

14

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 15 of 35

1 come out of the [immigration reform] proposal at the federal level. I believe this would

2 be viewed as a weakening of our opposition to illegal immigration and so for that reason

3 I would oppose the amendment.” Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate

4 Committee of the Whole hearing, at approximately 00:30:30 and 00:33:08.

5

65. During the same hearing on May 23, 2007, Senator Tom O’Halloran stated

6 his intent to make sure workers would be charged with a serious enough crime to

7 guarantee they “stay in jail” while the case is pending and then be immediately deported.

8 Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,

9 at approximately 00:57:50. He erroneously believed they could “be deported by the State

10 of Arizona.” Id. at 00:57:20.

11

66. The Legislature did not make any findings or conduct any studies

12 regarding the specific financial or other harm to individuals’ whose identities were used

13 as a result of this activity.

14

67. Unlike other situations commonly understood as “identify theft,”

15 undocumented workers do not take money or make purchases in the name of the person

16 whose information they use. In many cases undocumented workers do not know if the

17 information they are using belongs to a real person, and often, the information does not

18 belong to a real person.

19

68. The legislative proceedings demonstrate that the motivation for Section 1

20 in H.B. 2779 was related to legislators’ views regarding illegal immigration and not to

21 address identifiable criminal harms of identity theft.

22

69. In signing H.B. 2779 into law, Governor Napolitano also identified the

23 measure as reflecting state frustration with the federal handling of immigration. She

24 stated, “Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed House Bill 2779 because it is

25 abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive

26 immigration reforms our country needs.” Letter from Janet Napolitano to Jim Weiers

27 (July 2, 2007), available at http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Chapter_Laws/2007/

28 48th_Legislature_1st_Regular_Session/CH_279.pdf.

15

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 16 of 35

1

70. Napolitano was quoted in news sources as saying, about the bill, “We’re

2 dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now . . . . The states will take the lead, and

3 Arizona will take the lead among the states.” Matthew Benson, Governor OKs toughest

4 migrant-hire law in U.S., ARIZ. REPUBLIC, July 3, 2007.

5

71. With the adoption of H.B. 2779, Arizona had appeased constituents who

6 had expressed hostility and bias against undocumented workers. Champions of the bill

7 included members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, United for a Sovereign

8 America and Protect Arizona NOW.

9

72. In 2008, backers of H.B. 2779 faced a ballot initiative that they believed

10 would make Arizona’s employer sanctions regime more lenient. In a message opposing

11 the initiative, then-Representative Pearce opened with “#1 LURE IS JOBS AND

12 ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS; VIOLENT CRIME FOLLOWS ILLEGAL ALIEN

13 CROWD.” He continued, “IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS RARELY MAKE A

14 LIVING AS GANGSTERS, THEY ARE WORK[sic] CONSTRUCTION, AUTO

15 REPAIR, FARMING, LANDSCAPING, AND LOS[sic] SKILLED JOBS, DRUGS,

16 HOME INVASIONS, FALSE DOCUMENTS.” A copy of the email is attached as

17 Exhibit 6 to this Complaint.

18

73. Pearce also returned to the Legislature that year with another bill to amend

19 and supplement the Legal Arizona Workers Act, H.B. 2745. Section 1 of H.B. 2745

20 expanded the Class 4 identity theft statute to punish individuals for using the information

21 of another person, real or fictitious, “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.”

22 A.R.S. §13-2008. A Class 4 felony is punishable by up to 3 years. A.R.S. §13-702(D).

23 An individual under 21 years of age who uses false identification to illegally obtain

24 liquor was exempt under the statute. A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(E), 4-241(L), 13-707(A).

25

74. H.B. 2745 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law on May 1,

26 2008. The full text of the law, as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 7 to this Complaint and

27 is incorporated by reference.

28

16

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 17 of 35

1

Arizona’s Worker Identity Provisions Intrude upon Federal Law

2

75. Arizona’s passage of laws to penalize undocumented workers’ use of false

3 or fictitious identities to “obtain or continue employment” directly intrudes upon the

4 federal government’s exclusive authority in the (federally-created) employment

5 verification process.

6

76. The scheme Congress created provides a “full set of standards designed to

7 work as a harmonious whole.” Valle del Sol v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1024-25 (9th

8 Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014) (internal quotation omitted).

9

77. Congress’s consolidation of authority over fraud in the employment

10 verification process at the federal level allows authorities to select among available

11 enforcement tools to carry out (and balance) federal objectives. This flexibility is an

12 important feature of the federal scheme.

13

78. If Arizona’s worker identity provisions are allowed to stand, every state

14 could “create an independent scheme of prosecution and judicial enforcement outside

15 the control of the federal government . . . .” United States v. S. Carolina, 840 F. Supp.

16 2d 898, 926-27 (D.S.C. 2011) (invalidating provision making it a state offense to use a

17 fraudulent identification document for the purpose of establishing lawful presence in the

18 United States), aff'd, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013). This would “detract[] from the

19 integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2502

20 (internal quotation omitted).

21

79. Even complementary state regulation is impermissible. In this case,

22 Arizona’s sanctions actually conflict with federal law.

23

80. A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) impose different penalties than

24 federal law and, unlike federal law, fail to distinguish between different types of

25 fraudulent conduct in the employment verification process.

26

81. Arizona’s statutes therefore further stand as an obstacle to success of

27 Congress’s chosen “calibration of force” in accomplishing its purposes and objectives.

28 Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 380 (2000).

17

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 18 of 35

1

82. In addition to federal immigration law, A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-

2 2009(A)(3) frustrate the goals of federal labor and employment law, which Congress

3 recognized was critical to the success of the employer sanctions regime.

4

83. During congressional deliberations over IRCA, Congress was acutely

5 aware of the importance of vigorous enforcement of labor protections for workers.

6 Congress explicitly authorized funds for the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”)

7 Wage and Hour Division to strengthen enforcement of employment standards laws for

8 undocumented workers in IRCA, recognizing that doing so would “remove the

9 economic incentive for employers to exploit and use such aliens.” IRCA § 111(d).

10

84. Federal labor and employment law protections apply regardless of

11 immigration status.

12

85. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the DOL have

13 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby DHS has agreed to refrain from

14 worksite enforcement in cases where employers may be manipulating enforcement

15 activities to gain leverage in a labor dispute. DHS/DOL Revised MOU Between DHS

16 and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Mar. 31, 2011).

17

86. In Arizona, however, the threat of a felony arrest under the worker identity

18 provisions gives unscrupulous employers a hammer to hold over the head of workers

19 who would otherwise seek to enforce their labor rights.

20

87. Arizona’s worker identity provisions also contravene federal anti-

21 discrimination law.

22

88. For example, the 1870 Civil Rights Act specifically sought to protect

23 foreign nationals from sub-federal discrimination.

24

89. Codified today at 28 U.S.C. § 1981, Section 16 of the 1870 Civil Rights

25 Act emphasized that “all persons . . . shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties

26 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1981 (emphasis added). Codified today at 18 U.S.C. § 242, Section 17

27 of the Act prohibited any person “under the color of [] law” from subjecting any person

28

18

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 19 of 35

1 within a state to “different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such person

2 being an alien . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242 (emphasis added).

3

90. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also guarantees that

4 all persons receive equal protection of the laws.

5

91. In recasting Arizona’s identity theft statutes to target undocumented

6 workers, the Legislature acted in a discriminatory fashion.

7

92. The language and history of Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B.

8 2745 demonstrate the Legislature’s intent to punish on the basis of alienage.

9

93. As candidly acknowledged by their author and primary sponsor, the

10 purpose of these measures was to make conditions so unbearable for undocumented

11 workers that they would voluntarily “self-deport.”

12

94. In passing these measures, the Arizona Legislature acted on a desire to

13 harm a politically unpopular group.

14

95. The Legislature played on and gave effect to private fears and prejudice

15 against undocumented immigrants.

16

96. Further, legislators refused to consider any lighter penalty for

17 undocumented workers because such a move would be “viewed as a weakening of our

18 opposition to illegal immigration.” Perception of Arizona’s position on the federal issue

19 of illegal immigration is not a legitimate state interest that could justify differential

20 treatment on the basis of alienage.

21

97. Arizona’s worker identity provisions violate federal anti-discrimination

22 protections.

23

Maricopa County Defendants’ Campaign to Criminalize Undocumented Workers Based on Arizona’s Worker Identity Provisions

24

98. In 2008, the MCSO, relying on the worker identity provisions, began

25 conducting worksite enforcement operations.

26

99. The MCSO’s worksite operations were part of a larger campaign by the

27 Sheriff’s Office to “crack down” on illegal immigration. In July 2007, the agency had

28

19

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 20 of 35

1 announced that it had become a “full-fledged anti illegal immigration agency,” with its

2 employees “trained and anxious make a large dent” and “reduce the number of illegal

3 aliens making their way into the United States and Maricopa County.”

4

100. Sheriff Arpaio focused his agency’s illegal immigration program on

5 immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. Anti-Hispanic sentiment had fueled his

6 constituents’ call to channel the agency’s law enforcement resources towards the

7 immigration issue.

8

101. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona later found in 2013 in

9 Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio that MCSO’s immigration enforcement operations were

10 improperly based on race and that agency was engaged in systematic racial profiling of

11 suspected undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has also

12 sued the MCSO over racial profiling and other civil rights violations.

13

102. One of the more significant changes that the MCSO made to carry out its

14 focus on illegal immigration was the creation of a specialized unit within the agency to

15 find and arrest undocumented immigrants, called the Human Smuggling Unit (“HSU”).

16 Sheriff Arpaio also applied for a 287(g) agreement with DHS to cross-certify 160

17 officers to arrest individuals based on a suspected violation of the federal immigration

18 laws.

19

103. The HSU had three squads. One of the squads was called the Employer

20 Sanctions Unit. Notwithstanding the name of the Employer Sanctions Unit, much of the

21 work of the squad involved investigating undocumented immigrants who used false

22 documents to work.

23

104. The squad worked closely with the MCAO, which was headed initially by

24 former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

25

105. MCAO likewise had a focus on illegal immigration. While campaigning

26 for his re-election in 2008, speaking about immigration, Thomas assured voters that he

27 would “work tirelessly to protect our neighborhoods from those who threaten us and

28 violate our laws.” Andrew Thomas, County Attorney stands up for you, ARIZ. REPUBLIC,

20

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 21 of 35

1 Sept. 26, 2008 (emphasis added). He declared, “I will not treat illegal immigrants as a

2 protected class . . . .” Id.

3

106. The MCAO assigned cases of employees using false identities to work to a

4 special unit that handled the office’s immigration-related cases rather than to its Fraud

5 and Identity Theft Enforcement (“FITE”) Bureau.

6

107. Investigations would typically begin with a citizen tip to the Sheriff’s

7 Office’s “illegal immigration hotline” that undocumented workers were employed at a

8 particular business. MCSO detectives would conduct an investigation, obtaining copies

9 of wage reports that an employer files with the Arizona Department of Economic

10 Security (“DES”) and comparing those against information found in other databases.

11

108. Workers usually use a Social Security number on the Form I-9 to show

12 eligibility for employment and that same number will then be used on other employment

13 forms for consistency.

14

109. With the information from the DES reports and database checks, MCSO

15 would then contact the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and ask that agency to

16 identify which employees’ names matched the Social Security information SSA had on

17 file and which did not. With the information it received back from the SSA, MCSO

18 would obtain a search warrant for a business, alleging violations of A.R.S. §§ 13-

19 2008(A), 13-2009(A)(3) and sometimes the state forgery statute, § 13-2002.

20

110. MCSO executed search warrants with a show of force and regularly sent

21 hundreds of deputies and posse members, including tactical and K-9 units, to descend

22 upon a business. Workers were usually held incommunicado for hours while deputies

23 sorted through employee records and questioned them about their identity and

24 immigration status.

25

111. Until October 2009, those workers who MCSO could not charge

26 criminally were arrested on administrative immigration charges and processed for

27 deportation.3

28 3 DHS terminated the MCSO’s street-level 287(g) authority on October 16, 2009 after the 21

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 22 of 35

1

112. Many workers, however, were arrested on state felony charges of identity

2 theft and forgery and prosecuted under A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and13-2009(A)(3).

3

113. By charging workers under these statutes, MCSO and MCAO could ensure

4 that they would be categorically disqualified from pretrial bail pursuant to another harsh

5 Pearce immigration measure, Proposition 100.4

6

114. Though the MCSO and MCAO have made some adjustments to how they

7 conduct these investigations in the intervening years, the basic goal of the operations

8 remains the same—to go after undocumented workers.

9

115. Since 2008, the MCSO has conducted over 80 worksite operations,

10 arresting nearly 790 workers under A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) and § 13-2009(A)(3).

11

116. In the same period, Maricopa County has brought only four actions against

12 employers. Three of those actions were civil, resulting in business license suspensions of

13 10 days or less, and a fourth action—still pending—is criminal.

14

117. In 2010, there was a change in leadership at the MCAO. The interim

15 County Attorney Rick Romley decided to stop sharing state funds that Arizona had

16 allocated to Maricopa County for enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act with

17 the MCSO because the funds had primarily been used for worksite raids to arrest

18 employees, as opposed to going after employers who knowingly hired undocumented

19 immigrants.

20

118. In response to Romley’s decision, Sheriff Arpaio shifted funds from other

21 parts of his agency’s budget in order to keep the unit going. He was adamant that “There

22 will be no change.” The MCSO abandoned all pretense of focusing on civil employer

23

24

25 DOJ found that the agency was engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminatory

26

policing and other civil rights violations. 4 Proposition 100 and its implementing statutes prohibit Arizona courts from setting

27

pretrial bail for persons charged with a Class 1-4 felony who “ha[ve] entered and remained in the United States illegally.” The measure is being challenged in Lopez-

28

Valenzuela v. Maricopa County, No. 2:08-cv-00060-SRB (D. Ariz.), appeal taken, No. 11-16487 (9th Cir.) (pending before en banc panel).

22

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 23 of 35

1 sanctions and changed the name of the unit to the Criminal Employment Squad to

2 explicitly focus on employees.5

3

119. MCAO, under the leadership of now County Attorney Bill Montgomery,

4 has resumed prosecution of employees under Arizona’s worker identity provisions.

5

120. MCSO and MCAO’s method of enforcing A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-

6 2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers has instilled great fear in the immigrant

7 community.

8

121. Rather than being secondary to employer sanctions, Maricopa County’s

9 worksite enforcement strategy has been to almost exclusively target workers, detain

10 them without possibility of bail and pressure them into signing felony pleas.

11

122. Maricopa County’s practices have given employers unchecked power over

12 workers.

13

123. Sometimes, an employer is aware that a worker has used false or fictitious

14 information to obtain work; an employer may even provide the information or fill it in

15 for workers. Yet employers know it will likely be the worker who is arrested if the

16 discrepancy were to be discovered (or be reported by the employer).

17

124. Volunteers and staff with Puente have observed what seems to be an

18 increase in labor abuse and greater hesitation on the part of workers to report labor

19 violations in Maricopa County.

20

125. Sheriff Arpaio has publicly announced his continuing commitment to

21 vigorous enforcement of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) and § 13-2009(A)(3) against

22 undocumented workers.

23

126. In February 2014, he told a reporter, in response to speculation that his

24 office’s worksite operations might be on the decline, “[W]e’re going to continue to

25 enforce the state law of identity theft.” Megan Cassidy, MCSO raids decline over the

26 past year, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Feb. 3, 2014.

27

28

5 In late 2013, the name of the squad was changed once again, to the Criminal Employment Unit. Its focus remains the same.

23

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 24 of 35

1

127. In March 2014, Arpaio stressed to a group of supporters, “Now, they’re

2 clamping down, all these rulings from judges . . . But I still enforce the illegal

3 immigration laws by virtue of going into businesses and locking up the employees with

4 fake ID.” He continued, confirming his understanding of the identity theft laws as an

5 immigration enforcement tool, “[W]e do know that 99.9 percent are here illegally, we

6 know that, but they are not charged with that, they are stealing your ID.” Statement of

7 Sheriff Joe Arpaio, MN Tea Party Special Event, March 6, 2014, available at

8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFd-Xxrl5qw, at minute 51:04.

9

128. The MCSO, MCAO and Maricopa County (the “Maricopa County

10 Defendants”) continue to enforce A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) and § 13-2009(A)(3) against

11 workers as part of an official policy, pattern and practice. The MCSO arrested nine

12 workers as recently as June 13, 2014.

13

129. Upon information and belief, the Maricopa County Defendants continue to

14 expend local tax revenues on investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating undocumented

15 workers under A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) and § 13-2009(A)(3).

16

Impact on the Immigrant Community and Puente’s Response

17 Plaintiff Puente Arizona

18

130. Puente is a grassroots organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, with

19 hundreds of members, the vast majority of whom are migrants.

20

131. Migrants, particularly undocumented migrants and migrants in mixed

21 status families, face significant stigma and barriers to social and economic integration.

22 To fulfill its mission of developing, educating and empowering migrants to enhance

23 their quality of life, Puente provides a variety of services to the community, including

24 English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness

25 training, and educational programs for children. Puente also offers cultural events,

26 including concerts, film screenings, and an annual Day of the Dead celebration.

27

132. Puente’s members play a central role in setting the organization’s

28 direction, priorities, and activities. Primary decision-making happens at Puente’s weekly

24

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 25 of 35

1 meetings, which are open to all members and program participants. In addition, Puente

2 holds membership retreats twice a year. As an organization, Puente represents its

3 members’ collective interests and expresses their collective views.

4

133. The Maricopa County Defendants’ enforcement of Arizona’s worker

5 identity provisions has heavily impacted Puente’s work and frustrated its mission.

6

134. The climate of fear caused by enforcement directly interferes with

7 Puente’s efforts to develop and empower the migrant community. For example, many

8 workers who participate in Puente’s know-your-rights trainings are reluctant to exercise

9 labor rights for fear of arrest and prosecution under Arizona’s laws.

10

135. The climate of fear created by the raids has also led migrants to retreat

11 from public life. Some are even reluctant to leave their homes, including to participate in

12 Puente events and activities.

13

136. The jailing of heads of families—many of whom play important roles in

14 local churches, schools, and community organizations—has also frayed the social fabric

15 and made it difficult for Puente to build a strong community. Families of arrested

16 individuals struggle to get by without their primary breadwinners, which lowers not just

17 their own capacity, but that of other community members to whom they are forced to

18 turn for support. The raids have affected community members of all ages, from all walks

19 of life.

20

137. For example, in June 2009, then-9-year-old Katherine Figueroa was

21 playing at home when she overheard a TV news anchor announce that the carwash

22 where her parents worked had just been raided. She rushed to the TV and watched in

23 horror as MCSO deputies arrested her mother, Sandra Figueroa, and her father, Carlos

24 Figueroa. The MCSO charged her parents with using false documents to work and

25 incarcerated both of them in the County Jail for the next several months. Without her

26 parents, Katherine was forced to rely on extended family and friends for support.

27

138. More recently, in January 2013, 22-year-old Noemi Romero was arrested

28 by MCSO deputies while working as a cashier at Lam’s Supermarket. Noemi, who grew

25

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 26 of 35

1 up in the United States, was working in order to raise money to pay the application fee

2 for the federal government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”)

3 program, which provides certain undocumented young people with work authorization

4 and a reprieve from deportation. Noemi dreamed of one day working in nursing or

5 cosmetology. Her dreams were shattered when MCSO raided Lam’s Supermarket just

6 days after she’d finally managed to save enough money for the application, arrested her

7 and charged her with using a false identity to work. The identity information Noemi

8 used belonged to her mother. Noemi’s felony conviction now disqualifies her from the

9 DACA program. Unable to work or go to college, Noemi lives at home with her parents.

10

139. 63-year-old Marta Espinoza Lopez was arrested by MCSO deputies in

11 February 2013 while she was working as a seamstress at Sportex Apparel. Marta had

12 worked at Sportex for 12 years. She had used her earnings to support herself and to put

13 her children through college in Mexico. She was arrested during an MCSO raid on

14 Sportex for using a fictitious identity to work. She spent four months in County Jail and

15 was subsequently transferred to immigration detention. Upon her release, Marta found

16 she had nothing. When she hadn’t returned home after the raid, her landlord sold all her

17 possessions and rented the apartment to someone else. Marta was forced to rely on

18 friends and community organizations, including Puente, for support.

19

140. One of Puente's core organizers also had an uncle arrested in the MCSO

20 raid of Sportex.

21

141. Seeing the impact that the Maricopa County Defendants’ practices were

22 having on the community with which Puente works, Puente was compelled to respond.

23

142. Puente has provided affected workers and families with childcare,

24 temporary housing, emergency financial assistance, essential information about the

25 criminal process, access to legal services, and critical social and moral support.

26 Additionally, Puente brings family members to visit their loved ones in detention and

27 purchased a van for this purpose. Finally, Puente advocates on behalf of arrested

28 workers in order to try to secure their release and reunite them with their families.

26

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 27 of 35

1

143. Because of the resources Puente diverted toward providing this assistance,

2 the organization had to cut back on its free English classes, health and wellness projects,

3 and other core services. Future enforcement actions will again require Puente to divert

4 scarce resources towards assisting affected workers and families.

5

144. Puente’s membership continues to include a significant number of

6 migrants who are at risk of being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted by the

7 Maricopa County Defendants under A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3). Some

8 undocumented Puente members are working to provide for themselves and their families

9 and have used false identity information in order to obtain or continue employment.

10

145. Puente members who have used false identity information in order to

11 obtain or continue employment live in constant fear that they may be arrested and

12 prosecuted under A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) at any time. Many worry

13 every morning when they leave for work that they may not come home that night.

14

146. Puente brings this suit on behalf of itself and on behalf of its members who

15 face a likelihood of future injury due to the Maricopa County Defendants’ practices.

16 Because Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and their claims are not dependent on detailed

17 facts unique to each individual, individual participation by Puente members is not

18 necessary. Given the climate of fear surrounding enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A)

19 and 13-2009(A)(3), it is unlikely any would come forward to assert their rights if their

20 individual participation were required.

21

147. Puente has no relevant conflicts of interest with its individual members.

22 Puente’s pursuit of this litigation is pertinent to the organization’s mission of

23 developing, educating and empowering the local migrant community.

24 Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola

25

148. Sara Cervantes is a 26-year-old resident of Glendale, Arizona. She has one

26 son, who is 5 years old. Until January 2013, she worked in the produce department at

27 Lam’s Supermarket to support herself and her young son and had never been charged

28 with or convicted of any crime.

27

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 28 of 35

1

149. On January 17, 2013, MCSO deputies conducted a worksite raid on Lam’s

2 Supermarket while Ms. Cervantes and others were working. Deputies cleared the store

3 of customers and then blocked the store exits, gathered all the workers together, and

4 demanded they produce identification. Deputies ultimately arrested Ms. Cervantes along

5 with approximately eight other Latino employees.

6

150. Ms. Cervantes was charged with using a false identity to work. She was

7 detained at the County Jail and denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to Proposition

8 100.

9

151. On March 18, 2013, after approximately two months in jail, Ms. Cervantes

10 pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking the identity of another with intent to obtain

11 employment under A.R.S. § 13-2009, a Class 3 felony.

12

152. Ms. Cervantes was sentenced on May 6, 2013. As the Superior Court

13 found, “there [was] no victim in this case” because Ms. Cervantes had used information

14 belonging to a fictitious person. The court sentenced her to 109 days in jail, with credit

15 for time served, and twelve months probation.

16

153. On November 5, 2013, Ms. Cervantes was granted an early termination of

17 probation upon the recommendation of her Probation Officer and released from

18 probation. In total, following her guilty plea on March 18, 2013, Ms. Cervantes spent 59

19 days in jail and six months on probation.

20

154. Ms. Cervantes’ length of incarceration and probation rendered federal

21 habeas relief unavailable to her.

22

155. Upon information and belief, it takes the Arizona Court of Appeals,

23 Division One, approximately one year or longer from the date of filing to decide a

24 criminal appeal. It takes the Arizona Supreme Court approximately four to six months to

25 decide whether or not to hear a case following a Court of Appeals decision, and an

26 additional three to six months to decide the appeal.

27

28

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 29 of 35

1

156. Given the length of the Arizona appellate process and the length of her

2 sentence, it was impossible for Plaintiff Cervantes to exhaust state remedies, much less

3 file and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in custody.

4

157. Ms. Cervantes feels as if her felony conviction has marked her life forever.

5 She believes that people in her community now look at her differently. She worries that

6 the conviction will negatively impact her in the event she is ever stopped or detained by

7 police in the future, and may impact her chances for future immigration relief.

8 Plaintiff Guadalupe Arredondo

9

158. Guadalupe Arredondo is a 26-year-old resident of Phoenix, Arizona. She is

10 the mother of two girls, ages 5 and 11, and a member of Puente. Until February 14,

11 2013, she worked at the Bazzill Basics Paper Factor to support herself and her family

12 and had never been charged with or convicted of any crime.

13

159. On February 14, 2013, MCSO deputies arrested Ms. Arredondo at work.

14

160. Ms. Arredondo was charged with using a false identity to work and

15 detained in the County Jail. She was denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to

16 Proposition 100.

17

161. On or about May 3, 2013, Ms. Arredondo pled guilty to one count of

18 taking the identity of another with the intent to obtain or continue employment under

19 A.R.S. § 13-2008, a Class 4 Felony.

20

162. On June 4, 2013, Ms. Arredondo was sentenced to 110 days in jail, with

21 credit for time served, and twelve months of probation.

22

163. On December 19, 2013, Ms. Arredondo was granted an early release from

23 probation at the recommendation of her Probation Officer and released from probation.

24 In total, following her guilty plea, Ms. Arredondo spent approximately 32 days in jail

25 and six months on probation.

26

164. Ms. Arredondo’s short period of incarceration and probation rendered

27 federal habeas relief unavailable to her. Given the length of the Arizona appellate

28 process and the length of her sentence, it was impossible for Ms. Arredondo to exhaust

29

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 30 of 35

1 state remedies, much less file and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in

2 custody.

3

165. Ms. Arredondo worries frequently about her criminal conviction. The

4 mark on her record makes it difficult for her to put her traumatic time in jail behind her.

5 Because of her conviction, she fears any interaction with the police. She is concerned

6 that the conviction will negatively impact her in the event she is ever stopped or detained

7 by police in the future, and may affect her chances for future immigration relief.

8 Plaintiff Reverend Susan Frederick-Gray

9

166. Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is a Maricopa County taxpayer.

10

167. Rev. Frederick-Gray objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce

11 A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.

12

168. She believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish individuals

13 who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other persons

14 does not serve the public good. Those funds could instead be spent on essential public

15 services.

16

169. Rev. Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-

17 2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) by Maricopa County Defendants as an illegal expenditure of

18 county taxpayer funds.

19

20

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21

170. Plaintiffs Puente and Frederick-Gray bring this action as a class action

22 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)

23 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

24

a. Plaintiff Puente seeks to represent a subclass of all persons who will

25

be subject to investigation, arrest, detention or prosecution by

26

Defendants under Arizona’s worker identity provisions (the

27

“worker subclass”).

28

30

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 31 of 35

1

b. Plaintiff Frederick-Gray seeks to represent a subclass of all persons

2

who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to the use of county

3

tax funds to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute individuals

4

under Arizona’s worker identity provisions (the “taxpayer

5

subclass”).

6

171. The proposed subclasses are so numerous that joinder of all members is

7 impracticable.

8

172. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed subclasses,

9 including (1) whether Arizona’s worker identity provisions are preempted by federal

10 law; and (2) whether Arizona’s worker identity provisions deprive members of the

11 worker subclass of the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth

12 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

13

173. The claims and defenses of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the

14 claims and defenses of their respective subclasses.

15

174. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests

16 of the respective subclasses.

17

175. Defendants in this case have acted and will continue to act in violation of

18 proposed subclass members’ rights, which are grounds generally applicable to the

19 subclasses, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding

20 declaratory relief with respect to the subclasses as a whole.

21

176. Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and experienced in class action litigation

22 of the type brought here. Plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the University of

23 California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, the ACLU Foundation of

24 Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Law Office of Ray A.

25 Ybarra Maldonado PLC, who collectively have extensive experience with litigation,

26 including class action litigation, regarding the rights of immigrants and constitutional

27 law.

28

31

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 32 of 35

1

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

2

177. As a result of the conduct of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs have

3 been denied their constitutional rights.

4

178. In violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Defendants have and will

5 continue to act under color of law.

6

179. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and

7 Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Defendants’ policies, practices,

8 conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable

9 injury to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their constitutional

10 rights.

11

180. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to address the

12 wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief restraining

13 Defendants from continuing to enforce and engage in the policies, practices and customs

14 described herein.

15

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

16

First Claim For Relief

17

Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. §1983

18

181. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

19 set forth here.

20

182. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution

21 provides: 22 23 24

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

25

183. The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law preempts state law in

26 any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or

27 which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts

28 or interferes with federal law.

32

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 33 of 35

1

184. In enacting Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending

2 A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), Arizona impermissibly intruded on the federal

3 government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration, legislating in a field occupied

4 by the federal government and imposing burdens and penalties on noncitizens not

5 authorized by and contrary to federal law and policy, all in violation of the Supremacy

6 Clause.

7

185. Defendants may therefore not enforce Arizona’s worker identity provisions

8 or use information or documents employees submit in connection with 8 U.S.C. §

9 1324a’s employment verification process as the basis for any investigation, arrest or

10 prosecution.

11

Second Claim For Relief

12

Equal Protection, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. §1983

13

186. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

14 set forth here.

15

187. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o

16 State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

17 laws.”

18

188. Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending A.R.S. §§

19 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), constitute impermissible discrimination against noncitizens

20 on the basis of alienage.

21

189. Defendants cannot establish that Sections 1 of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745

22 had any valid justification, including a rational basis.

23

190. By enforcing Arizona’s identity theft provisions against undocumented

24 workers, Defendants deprive them of equal protection of the laws within the meaning of

25 the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

26

27

28

33

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 34 of 35

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

191. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:

3

a. Enter a judgment declaring that A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-

4

2009(A)(3) violate the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection

5

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

6

b. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County

7

Defendants from further enforcing A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-

8

2009(A)(3);

9

c. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County

10

Defendants from using information or documents employees submit in

11

connection with 8 U.S.C. § 1324a’s employment verification process as

12

the basis for any investigation, arrest or prosecution;

13

d. Issue an injunction ordering Defendants Arpaio and Halliday to expunge

14

from their records the arrests and convictions of Plaintiffs Arredondo

15

and Cervantes under A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3),

16

respectively, and to forward a copy of this order to any person or agency

17

that was notified of said arrests or convictions;

18

e. Award attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, plus interest, pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1988; and

20

f. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

21

22

DATED this 18th day of June, 2014.

23

24

By /s/ Anne Lai

Anne Lai*

25

Sameer Ashar**

University of California, Irvine School of

26

Law – Immigrant Rights Clinic

401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500

27

Irvine, CA 92616-5479

28

34

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 35 of 35

Daniel J. Pochoda

1

ACLU Foundation of Arizona 3707 North 7th St., Ste. 235

2

Phoenix, AZ 85014

3

Jessica Karp** National Day Labor Organizing Network

4

675 S. Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057

5

Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado

6

Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, PLC

2637 North 16th St., Unit 1

7

Phoenix, AZ 85006

8

* Pro hac vice application pending **Pro hac vice application forthcoming

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

On the complaint:

11

Crystal Adams Renee Amador

12

Amy Bowles Leah Gasser-Ordaz

13

Vivek Mittal

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 8 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona,

No. CV14-1356 PHX DGC

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et
13 al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

This matter having recently come before this Court,

17

IT IS ORDERED that a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) is discouraged if

18 the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet

19 and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss to determine whether it can be

20 avoided. Consequently, motions to dismiss must contain a certification of conferral

21 indicating that the parties have conferred to determine whether an amendment could cure

22 a deficient pleading, and have been unable to agree that the pleading is curable by a

23 permissible amendment. In addition, parties shall endeavor not to oppose motions to

24 amend that are filed prior to the Scheduling Conference or within the time set forth in the

25 Rule 16 Case Management Order. Motions to dismiss that do not contain the required

26 certification are subject to be stricken on the Court’s motion.

27

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 8 Filed 06/20/14 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff serve a copy of this Order on

2 Defendant and file a notice of service with the Court.

3

Dated this 20th day of June, 2014.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona,

No. CV14-1356 PHX DGC

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et
13 al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

In addressing the pending motion for preliminary injunction and motions to

17 dismiss, the Court has identified two issues that require further input from the parties.

18

A. Proof of Standing.

19

To establish associational standing, Puente Arizona must show that at least one of

20 its members would have standing to sue in his or her own right. Puente has attempted to

21 do this with the affidavits of Carlos Garcia. Garcia asserts that he knows of Puente

22 members who are violating the identity theft laws and face a credible threat of

23 prosecution.

24

In Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009), certain organizations

25 argued that environmental regulations injured their members’ recreational interests. The

26 Court found that the organizations had failed to identify or name a single member whose

27 recreational interests would be harmed by the regulations. The organizations therefore

28 did not have standing. The Court provided this explanation:

1

2

The dissent proposes a hitherto unheard-of test for organizational standing: whether, accepting the organization's self-description of the activities of its

3

members, there is a statistical probability that some of those members are

4

threatened with concrete injury. . . . This novel approach to the law of organizational standing would make a mockery of our prior cases, which

5

have required plaintiff-organizations to make specific allegations

establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would

6

suffer harm. . . . [In a previous case,] we noted that the affidavit provided

7

by the city to establish standing would be insufficient because it did not

name the individuals who were harmed by the challenged license-

8

revocation program. This requirement of naming the affected members has

9

never been dispensed with in light of statistical probabilities, but only

where all the members of the organization are affected by the challenged

10

activity.

11

A major problem with the dissent's approach is that it accepts the

12

organizations’ self-descriptions of their membership, on the simple ground

13

that “no one denies” them. But it is well established that the court has an

independent obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether

14

it is challenged by any of the parties.

15

16 Id. at 497-99 (citations omitted). Summers appear to require that an organization seeking

17 standing provide specific factual information regarding concrete injury to one or more of

18 its members. The Garcia declarations do not provide such detail.

19

Two months after Summers, the Ninth Circuit decided White Tanks Concerned

20 Citizens, Inc. v. Strock, 563 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009). The case involved an organization

21 asserting associational standing to challenge environmental regulations. The organization

22 submitted an affidavit by its director, Beneli. “The affidavit explains the purpose and

23 history of the organization, but does not spell out the interests that Beneli personally had

24 in the area to be developed as Festival Ranch. Instead, the affidavit states that members

25 of WTCC regularly use the area, planned as Festival Ranch, for recreational purposes.”

26 Id. at 1038. The court did not address whether the affidavit identified or named the

27 individual members who would be affected by the regulations. The court simply found

28 that the organization had “properly alleged that its members ‘use the affected area and are

- 2 -

1 persons for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened by the

2 challenged activity.’” Id. at 1039.

3

The Court concludes that the more demanding standard of Summers controls. The

4 Court also concludes that mere allegations of concrete injury, although sufficient to

5 establish standing at the pleading stage, are not sufficient when a party seeks affirmative

6 equitable relief as do Plaintiffs. Applying Summers, the Court concludes that Puente has

7 not made a sufficient showing to establish associational standing. This is particularly true

8 given the requirement, at the preliminary injunction stage, that a plaintiff make a “clear

9 showing” of standing. Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010).

10

Applying the test set forth in Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214

11 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2000), the Court also concludes that Puente should be

12 permitted to file Doe affidavits of one or more members. Defendants agree that many

13 undocumented aliens are using false forms of identification to obtain employment in

14 Arizona. Defendants readily admit that they are actively enforcing the identity theft

15 statutes at issue in this case, and they do not dispute that prosecution under those statutes

16 can result not only in criminal sanctions, but also in serious immigration consequences.

17 In light of these admitted facts, the Court concludes that Puente’s members reasonably

18 fear serious consequences if their identities are disclosed, that they are vulnerable to

19 prosecution under the identity theft statutes, and that Defendants will not be prejudiced

20 by submission of anonymous affidavits at this stage of the litigation. The Court also

21 concludes that the public interest favors resolution of the constitutional issues raised by

22 the parties’ briefing. Id.

23

B. Pre-enforcement Review and Constitutional Interests.

24

The Court is concerned about an issue not addressed by the parties. The Supreme

25 Court has repeatedly suggested that plaintiffs can obtain pre-enforcement review of an

26 allegedly unconstitutional statute when they intend to engage in a “course of conduct

27 arguably affected with a constitutional interest[.]” Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S.

28 289, 298 (1979). This requirement was recently reiterated in Susan B. Anthony List v.

- 3 -

1 Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014):

2

3

We have permitted pre-enforcement review under circumstances that render the threatened enforcement sufficiently imminent. Specifically, we have

4

held that a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges

5

“an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a

6

credible threat of prosecution thereunder.”

7

8 Id. at 2342 (quoting Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298).

9

Courts have not extensively discussed the meaning or purpose of this requirement.

10 Some cases involving pre-enforcement challenges do not apply it. See Oklevueha Native

11 Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012); Thomas v. 12 Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000); San Diego Cnty. Gun

13 Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996). Other cases appear to recognize it:

14 For example, in Brache v. Westchester Cnty., 658 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1981), the court noted: 15 “[T]here does not appear to be any modern Supreme Court authority for the proposition

16 that a seller of goods may obtain a federal pre-enforcement ruling as to the vagueness of a

17 state statute, in the absence of any claim that the seller or a prospective customer has a 18 constitutional right to sell or buy the goods.” Id. at 52 n.6.

19

Many cases involving a pre-enforcement challenge quote and apply the

20 constitutional interest requirement, but with little analysis. These cases often involve 21 First Amendment rights where the plaintiffs clearly have an “intention to engage in a

22 course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest.” See, e.g., Susan B.

23 Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2342-44 (collecting Supreme Court cases on this issue); Kiser v. 24 Reitz, 765 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2014); Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v.

25 Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003); LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.

26 2000).

27

In a recent case, the Ninth Circuit seemed clearly to recognize this requirement.

28 The plaintiff in Sturgeon v. Masica, 768 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2014), used a hovercraft on

- 4 -

1 the Nation River to hunt moose. A federal regulation prohibited the use of hovercrafts on

2 this river. Sturgeon brought a pre-enforcement challenge. In finding that Sturgeon had

3 standing, the Ninth Circuit relied on Susan B. Anthony and held:

4

5

Sturgeon has satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement. He has alleged an intention to use his hovercraft, and has contacted both NPS and the

6

Department of the Interior regarding the applicability and enforcement of

7

the regulation to his hovercraft use. Sturgeon's inability to use his hovercraft for moose-hunting purposes arguably implicates his right under

8

the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “to use

the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the

9

territory of the several States.” Sturgeon thus alleges “an intention to

10

engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional

interest.” 11

12 Id. at 1071-72 (citations omitted).

13

The Ninth Circuit also faced this issue in Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d

14 1006 (9th Cir. 2013). The plaintiff was a pastor who provided transportation and shelter

15 to undocumented aliens. The pastor brought a pre-enforcement challenge to an Arizona

16 law that prohibited her conduct. The Ninth Circuit quoted the constitutional interest

17 requirement, but summarily found “[the pastor] has established a credible threat of

18 prosecution under this statute, which she challenges on constitutional grounds.” Id. at

19 1015. The court did not further discuss the constitutional interest requirement.

20

C. Next Steps.

21

By December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum, not to exceed 10

22 pages, which attaches one or more anonymous affidavits and addresses why they show

23 standing in this case. The affidavits should confirm not only that the affiant is using false

24 identification for employment in Arizona and why the affiant reasonably fears

25 prosecution, but also that the affiant is a current member of Puente and was a member

26 when this lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs’ memorandum shall also address the second issue

27 identified above. If Plaintiffs agree that they must intend to engage in a course of

28 conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, they should specifically identify

- 5 -

1 that interest. Plaintiffs should not base their argument solely on the fact that some cases

2 appear to have not applied this requirement. They should address whether it is required

3 under Supreme Court precedent or Ninth Circuit precedent that does not conflict with

4 Supreme Court case law.

5

By December 17, 2014, Defendants shall file a joint memorandum, not to exceed

6 ten pages, addressing Plaintiffs’ December 10th filing. No further memoranda will be

7 filed without order of the Court.

8

Dated this 1st day of December, 2014.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

This case involves the constitutionality of two statutes that criminalize the act of

15 identity theft done with the intent to obtain or continue employment. Plaintiffs claim that

16 the purpose of these statutes is to discriminate against unauthorized aliens and that this

17 purpose makes the statutes unconstitutional under the Supremacy and Equal Protection

18 Clauses of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary

19 injunction that would enjoin Defendants from enforcing portions of these statutes.

20 Doc. 30. Defendants have responded and filed motions to dismiss. Docs. 53, 55. The

21 Court heard oral arguments on October 16, 2014. For reasons set forth below, the Court

22 will grant the motion for a preliminary injunction and deny Defendants’ motions to

23 dismiss.

24 I. Background.

25

A. Federal Immigration Law.

26

The federal government has broad and plenary powers over the subject of

27 immigration and the status of aliens. Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2498

28 (2012). This authority rests, in part, on the federal government’s constitutional power to

1 establish a uniform rule of naturalization, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and its inherent

2 power as a sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations, Arizona, 132

3 S. Ct. at 2498. In accordance with these powers, Congress passed the Immigration

4 Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) in 1986. Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986).

5 IRCA “made combating the employment of illegal aliens in the United States central to

6 ‘[t]he policy of immigration law.’” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S.

7 137, 147 (2002) (quoting INS v. Nat’l Ctr. For Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183,

8 194 & n.8 (1991)).

9

IRCA established a “comprehensive framework” for regulating the employment of

10 unauthorized aliens.1 Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504. It did so by establishing an extensive

11 “employment verification system,” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), to deny employment to

12 unauthorized aliens, Hoffman, 535 U.S. at 147. IRCA requires employers to verify the

13 “employment authorization and identity” of new employees before they begin work. 8

14 U.S.C. § 1324a(b). An individual may prove his or her employment authorization by

15 providing a document evidencing United States citizenship or an alien registration card.

16 Id. § 1324a(b)(1)(B)-(C). An individual may prove his or her identity by a variety of

17 documents, including a state driver’s license. Id. § 1324a(b)(1)(D). All of these

18 requirements are now formalized in the Form I-9 that millions of Americans fill out every

19 year. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2. The government has complemented the I-9 process with the

20 E-Verify program, “an internet-based system that allows an employer to verify an

21 employee’s work-authorization status.” Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558

22 F.3d 856, 862 (9th Cir. 2009).

23

IRCA makes it unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire a person who cannot

24 satisfy the employment verification system. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1). This requirement is

25

1 The parties use various phrases to describe an unauthorized alien, including 26 “undocumented worker” and “illegal immigrant.” The Court uses the term “unauthorized

27

alien” as it is defined in IRCA: “As used in this section, the term ‘unauthorized alien’ means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is

28

not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324a.

- 2 -

1 “enforced through criminal penalties and an escalating series of civil penalties tied to the

2 number of times an employer has violated the provisions.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504; 8

3 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)-(f). IRCA expressly preempts state or local laws that impose civil or

4 criminal sanctions – other than through licensing and similar laws – on those who employ

5 unauthorized aliens. Id. § 1324a(h)(2).

6

IRCA does not impose criminal penalties on unauthorized aliens who merely seek

7 or engage in unauthorized work, Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504, but it does criminalize the

8 act of using an “identification document” that is not lawfully issued, or is false, for the

9 purpose of satisfying the employment verification system, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b). With the

10 Immigration Act of 1990, Congress also imposed civil penalties on persons who use

11 falsified documents to satisfy the employment verification system. Pub. L. No. 101–649,

12 104 Stat. 4978 (1990) (adding 8 U.S.C. § 1324c). Congress has also made the use of

13 false documents for employment a deportable offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).

14 “Congress has made clear, however, that any information employees submit to indicate

15 their work status ‘may not be used’ for purposes other than prosecution under specified

16 federal criminal statutes for fraud, perjury, and related conduct.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at

17 2504 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5), (d)(2)(F)-(G)).

18

A “primary purpose in restricting immigration is to preserve jobs for American

19 workers.” Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. at 194 (1991) (quoting Sure–Tan,

20 Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 893 (1984)). But in passing IRCA, “Congress made a

21 deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in,

22 unauthorized employment.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504. “IRCA’s framework reflects a

23 considered judgment that making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized work –

24 aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their

25 removable status – would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives.” Id.

26

B. Arizona’s Identity Theft Laws.

27

Arizona passed its first identity theft statute in 1996, making it a crime to

28 “knowingly take[] the name, birth date or social security number of another person,

- 3 -

1 without the consent of that person, with the intent to obtain or use the other person’s

2 identity for any unlawful purpose or to cause financial loss to the other person.” 1996

3 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 205 (H.B. 2090) (West). Over the next decade, Arizona repeatedly

4 amended this statute – now codified at A.R.S. § 13-2008 – by expanding the definition of

5 identity theft. See, e.g., 2000 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 189 (H.B. 2428) (West); 2004 Ariz.

6 Legis. Serv. Ch. 109 (H.B. 2116) (West). Arizona also created a new crime of

7 aggravated identity theft under A.R.S. § 13-2009. 2005 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 190 (S.B.

8 1058) (West).

9

Plaintiffs challenge two bills that amended these identity theft laws to make them

10 applicable to employment of unauthorized aliens. In 2007, Arizona passed H.B. 2779,

11 known as the “Legal Arizona Workers Act.” 2007 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 279 (H.B.

12 2779) (West). The bulk of the bill concerned a new statute, A.R.S. § 13-212, relating to

13 the employment of unauthorized aliens. This new statute prohibited employers from

14 hiring unauthorized aliens and threatened the suspension of licenses if an employer failed

15 to comply. This statute ultimately was held to be constitutional by the United States

16 Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011).

17

H.B. 2779 also amended Arizona’s aggravated identity theft statute, A.R.S. § 13-

18 2009, by adding the following italicized language:

19

A. A person commits aggravated taking the identity of another person

or entity if the person knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures,

20

records, possesses or uses any personal identifying information or

entity identifying information of either . . . 21

3. Another person, including a real or fictitious person, with the

22

intent to obtain employment.

23 Id. (amendment in italics).

24

In 2008, Arizona passed H.B. 2745, titled “Employment of Unauthorized Aliens.”

25 2008 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 152 (H.B. 2745) (West). The bill amended and created

26 statutes relating to the employment of unauthorized aliens. Id. (amending A.R.S. § 23-

27 212; creating A.R.S. § 23-212.01). The bill also contained provisions that ensured

28 employers’ participation in the federal government’s e-verify program. As relevant here,

- 4 -

1 H.B. 2745 amended A.R.S. § 13-2008(a) to add the following italicized language:

2

A person commits taking the identity of another person or entity if the

person knowingly takes, purchases, manufactures, records, possesses or

3

uses any personal identifying information or entity identifying information

of another person or entity, including a real or fictitious person or entity,

4

without the consent of that other person or entity, with the intent to obtain

or use the other person’s or entity’s identity for any unlawful purpose or to

5

cause loss to a person or entity whether or not the person or entity actually

suffers any economic loss as a result of the offense, or with the intent to

6

obtain or continue employment.

7 Id. (amendment in italics).

8

C. This Lawsuit.

9

This lawsuit concerns § 13-2009(A)(3), created by H.B. 2779, and the language

10 added to § 13-2008(A) by H.B. 2745. For the sake of simplicity, the Court will refer to

11 these challenged provisions as “the identity theft laws.”

12

Plaintiffs argue that the identity theft laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First,

13 they claim that both laws are preempted by federal immigration law under the Supremacy

14 Clause of the United States Constitution. Doc. 23, ¶¶ 180-85. Second, they claim that

15 the identity theft laws “constitute impermissible discrimination against noncitizens on the

16 basis of alienage” and are facially invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the

17 Constitution. Doc. 23, ¶¶ 186-91; see Doc. 83 at 18 (agreeing to dismiss their as-applied

18 equal protection challenge).

19

Plaintiffs include Sara Cervantes Arreola, who was arrested and charged under the

20 identity theft laws and ultimately convicted under § 13-2009(A)(3). Doc. 23, ¶¶ 147-56.2

21 She asks the Court to declare the identity theft laws unconstitutional and to expunge the

22 record of her arrest and conviction. Doc. 23, ¶ 192. Plaintiffs also include Reverend

23 Susan Frederick-Gray, a Maricopa County taxpayer, and Puente Arizona, a “grassroots”

24 organization that serves the immigrant community. Id., ¶¶ 9, 12. They ask the Court to

25 declare the identity theft laws unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin their

26

27

2 Guadalupe Arredondo was also a Plaintiff at the beginning of this case. After

28

discovering that she had been arrested by Chandler Police, and not by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Ms. Arredondo agreed to dismiss her claims without prejudice

under Rule 41(a). Doc. 83 at 12 n.5.

- 5 -

1 enforcement by the Maricopa County Defendants. Id., ¶ 192. They also seek to represent

2 a class of unauthorized aliens who could be arrested and prosecuted under the identity

3 theft laws, as well as a class of Maricopa County taxpayers who object to Maricopa

4 County’s use of their tax dollars to fund enforcement of the identity theft laws. Doc. 23,

5 ¶ 169. Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to permanently enjoin the Maricopa County

6 Defendants from “using information or documents undocumented workers submit to

7 show federal authorization to work as the basis for any arrest or prosecution.” Doc. 23,

8 ¶ 192. Plaintiffs have sued Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; Bill

9 Montgomery, County Attorney for Maricopa County; Maricopa County; and the State of

10 Arizona. Doc. 23, ¶¶ 13-16.

11

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction asks the Court to enjoin Defendants

12 from enforcing the identity theft laws during the duration of this lawsuit. Doc. 30. The

13 motion is based only on the Supremacy Clause claim. Defendants have responded and

14 have also filed motions to dismiss. Docs. 53, 55. Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiffs

15 lack standing; (2) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection

16 Clause; (3) Maricopa County is not a proper party under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) the

17 Court should strike Plaintiffs’ complaint in whole or in part for containing impertinent

18 and irrelevant information. The Court will address the question of standing, the motion

19 for a preliminary injunction, and then the remainder of Defendants’ arguments.

20 II. Standing.

21

“In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, a plaintiff must establish

22 ‘the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,’ consisting of three elements: injury

23 in fact, causation, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the plaintiff’s

24 alleged injury.” Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Lujan v.

25 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). The injury in fact must constitute

26 “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and

27 (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citations

28 omitted). Plaintiffs must prove standing for each claim they seek to press and for each

- 6 -

1 form of relief that is sought. Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008).

2

A plaintiff must prove standing “in the same way as any other matter on which the

3 plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required

4 at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Ordinarily, “‘[f]or

5 purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and

6 reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must

7 construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.’” Maya v. Centex Corp., 658

8 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)). 9 But since Plaintiffs Puente Arizona and Frederick-Gray3 are moving for a preliminary

10 injunction, they must make “a clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v.

11 Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013); see Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785 (“Therefore, at

12 the preliminary injunction stage, a plaintiff must make a ‘clear showing’ of his injury in

13 fact.”).

14

A. Sara Cervantes Arreola.

15

Sara Cervantes Arreola claims she has standing based on the collateral

16 consequences flowing from her conviction under the identity theft laws. See Doc. 83 at

17 4. Defendants argue that Ms. Arreola has not shown an injury in fact sufficient to confer

18 standing. Doc. 53 at 5. Generally, “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself

19 show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by

20 any continuing, present adverse effects.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96

21 (1974); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (“Once the convict’s sentence has

22 expired, . . . some concrete and continuing injury . . . – some ‘collateral consequence’ of

23 the conviction – must exist if the suit is to be maintained.”).

24

The Supreme Court has recognized a presumption “that a wrongful criminal

25 conviction has continuing collateral consequences[.]” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8 (citing

26 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56 (1968)). “Once convicted, one remains forever

27 3 Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola is seeking declaratory relief and a separate
28 injunction that is not at issue in Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. See Doc. 83 at 12 (explaining relief sought by Plaintiff Arreola); Doc. 23, ¶ 192.

- 7 -

1 subject to the prospect of harsher punishment for a subsequent offense as a result of

2 federal and state laws that either already have been or may eventually be passed.”

3 Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 1459, 1463 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Chaker v. Crogan, 428

4 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an “irrefutable presumption that collateral

5 consequences result from any criminal conviction”). Therefore, “there is a presumption

6 of collateral consequences sufficient for standing if the correctness of the conviction is at

7 issue.” United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999).

8

Plaintiff Arreola continues to suffer the “collateral consequences” of her allegedly

9 unconstitutional conviction. She faces “the prospect of harsher punishment for a

10 subsequent offense[.]” Chaker, 428 F.3d at 1219. This injury is traceable to the identity

11 theft laws challenged in this case. Should the Court find the laws unconstitutional, the

12 Court would have the power to redress Ms. Arreola’s injury by expunging her criminal

13 records. See United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000); United States

14 v. Smith, 940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e have sanctioned the remedy of

15 expunction of [local] criminal records in civil rights cases involving unconstitutional state

16 convictions.”). The Court agrees with Defendants that the power to expunge criminal

17 records is narrow, but the Court need not decide whether to exercise that power at this

18 stage in the litigation. Ms. Arreola has alleged sufficient facts to establish standing.

19

B. Puente Arizona.

20

Puente Arizona argues that it has both associational standing to sue on behalf of its

21 members and direct standing to sue on its own behalf. Doc. 83 at 6-11. The Court will

22 address each of these arguments.

23

1. Associational Standing.

24

An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if “‘(a) its members

25 would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to

26 protect are germane to the organization’s purposes; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor

27 the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’”

28 Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 2000)

- 8 -

1 (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). In

2 assessing whether an association’s members would otherwise have standing to sue in

3 their own right, the Court need only find that one member would have standing for each

4 type of relief sought. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown

5 Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996); Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1014-19.

6

a. Standing to Sue in Their Own Right.

7

For the first factor of associational standing, Plaintiffs argue that at least three of

8 Puente’s members would have standing to sue in their own right because there is a

9 “credible threat” that they will be prosecuted under the identity theft laws. A credible

10 threat of prosecution can be an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. Thomas v.

11 Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, a

12 member of Puente could satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement by showing an “‘intention

13 to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but

14 proscribed by a statute, and [that] there exists a credible threat of prosecution

15 thereunder.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2342 (2014) (quoting

16 Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). The Ninth Circuit has established a

17 three-part test for identifying a credible threat of prosecution: “(1) whether the plaintiffs

18 have articulated a ‘concrete plan’ to violate the law in question; (2) whether the

19 government has communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings; and

20 (3) the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the statute.” Oklevueha Native

21 Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Thomas,

22 220 F.3d at 1138). Although Oklevueha used this test for the issue of constitutional

23 ripeness, earlier cases have used it for the issue of standing. See Thomas, 220 F.3d at

24 1138; San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1996).

25

i. Credible Threat of Prosecution.

26

The Court finds that three of Puente’s members face a credible threat of

27 prosecution under the identity theft laws. Plaintiffs have submitted anonymous affidavits

28

- 9 -

1 from three members. Doc. 130-1.4 Each affiant declares that he or she is living in

2 Arizona, is an active member of Puente, and has used the social security number and

3 green card of another to obtain his or her current job. Id. This conduct falls within the

4 purview of the identity theft laws. The affiants have not only “articulated a ‘concrete

5 plan’ to violate the law in question,” Oklevueha, 676 F.3d at 835, they are currently

6 violating it.

7

There is also a “history of past prosecution or enforcement under the statute.”

8 Oklevueha, 676 F.3d at 835. Law enforcement officials in Arizona have arrested and

9 charged thousands of people for identity theft. Doc. 60-4 at 12 (Matthew Bileski and

10 Phillip Stevenson, Identity Theft Arrest and Case Processing Data (2013)). In 2010

11 alone, law enforcement charged approximately 1,900 people with identity theft under

12 A.R.S. § 13-2008 and 590 people with aggravated identity theft under A.R.S. § 13-2009.

13 Id. at 12-16. These charges led to over 160 convictions. Id. Since November 22, 2010,

14 the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has filed approximately 194 cases under A.R.S.

15 § 13-2008(A) where there was a known victim. Doc. 85 at 3. As a method of enforcing

16 the identity theft laws, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has at times raided private

17 establishments and arrested individuals who were using fraudulent identification. See,

18 e.g., Doc. 30-7 (Declaration of Sara Arreola). Many, though not all, of the people

19 charged under these statutes are unauthorized aliens. See, e.g., id.; Doc. 30-3 at 51.

20

For the remaining prong of the credible threat test, Defendants argue that they

21 have not “communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings” against

22 Plaintiffs. Doc. 132. They emphasize that “the mere existence of a proscriptive statute

23

4 Plaintiffs initially submitted affidavits of Puente’s director, stating that members 24 of Puente were violating the identity theft laws and faced a credible threat of prosecution.

25

Docs. 30-4, 95-2. The Court found these affidavits insufficient, Doc. 129 (citing Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)), and permitted Plaintiffs to submit

26

anonymous affidavits of Puente members, Doc. 129 (citing Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000)). Defendants argue that they did

27

not have an opportunity to be heard on the issue of anonymous affidavits. Doc. 132 at 2. The Court does not agree. The issue was first raised in Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

28

injunction. Doc. 30 at 28. The issue was also raised during oral argument. Doc. 111 at 30-32. Defendants had the opportunity to address this issue in their responses to the

motion for preliminary injunction and in the various briefs they filed after oral argument.

- 10 -

1 [or] a generalized threat of prosecution,” Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1139, is not sufficient to

2 confer standing. They also point to a recent decision by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

3 Office (“MCSO”) to stop enforcing the identity theft laws. And they argue that Plaintiffs

4 do not face a threat of prosecution because they will be eligible for employment

5 authorization documents under the federal government’s recent expansion of its deferred

6 action policy.

7

The Court is not persuaded by these arguments. The question of “whether the

8 prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate

9 proceedings” is merely one factor in “evaluating the genuineness of a claimed threat to

10 initiate proceedings.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1016 (quoting Thomas, 220 F.3d at

11 1139). It is less relevant when there is a clear history of enforcing the law in question.

12 “[A] history of past enforcement against parties similarly situated to the plaintiffs cuts in

13 favor of a conclusion that a threat is specific and credible.” Lopez, 630 F.3d at 786-87;

14 see also Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2345 (“[P]ast enforcement against the same

15 conduct is good evidence that the threat of enforcement is not ‘chimerical’”) (quoting

16 Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)). Here, Plaintiffs currently are violating

17 the identity theft laws and there is a long history of enforcement of those laws. This is

18 sufficient for a pre-enforcement challenge.

19

The MCSO’s recent decision to stop enforcing the identity theft laws does not

20 alter this conclusion. Other law enforcement agencies within Maricopa County remain

21 capable of enforcing these laws. Although Defendants argue that enforcement by other

22 agencies “is not redressable because none of those other agencies are defendants,”

23 Doc. 132 at 4, the Maricopa County Attorney remains a defendant and he may prosecute

24 persons arrested by city police departments within Maricopa County, see A.R.S. § 11-109

25 (defining boundaries of Maricopa County); A.R.S. § 11-532 (defining powers of the

26 county attorney). In addition, the MCSO’s recent decision is not yet in effect. Doc. 131-

27 1 at 3 (“[T]he Criminal Employment Unit (CEU) will be disbanded after the current

28 identity theft investigation concludes in the end of January or early February of 2015.”).

- 11 -

1 As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs continue to face a threat of prosecution. Finally,

2 Defendants have identified nothing that would prevent the MCSO from resuming

3 enforcement of the identity theft laws at a later date.

4

Nor have Defendants clearly shown that the anonymous affiants are eligible for

5 employment authorization documents. The federal government did recently expand its

6 deferred action program. See Memorandum of Secretary of Department of Homeland

7 Security, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion (Nov. 20, 2014) (available at http://www.

8 dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf). But even if

9 the affiants meet some of the requirements of that program, their receipt of deferred

10 action is not guaranteed. “[T]he ultimate judgment as to whether an immigrant is granted

11 deferred action will be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 5. Furthermore, the

12 newly expanded program may not begin until May of 2015. Id. Until that time, the three

13 members of Puente who submitted anonymous affidavits face a credible threat of

14 prosecution under the identity theft laws.

15

ii. Constitutional Interests Factor.

16

The Supreme Court has said that a pre-enforcement challenge may be brought by a

17 plaintiff who alleges “‘an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected

18 with a constitutional interest[.]’” Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2342 (quoting Babbitt,

19 442 U.S. at 298) (emphasis added). Although courts often quote this language in pre-

20 enforcement challenge cases, they have not explained its meaning or whether it is always

21 required. Some cases appear to treat this language as a threshold requirement for pre-

22 enforcement challenges, see, e.g., Sturgeon v. Masica, 768 F.3d 1066, 1071-72 (9th Cir.

23 2014), while others ignore it entirely, see, e.g., Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561

24 U.S. 1, 15 (2010), Thomas, 220 F.3d 1134, San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm., 98 F.3d

25 1121. Without deciding whether this constitutional interest requirement applies to all

26 pre-enforcement challenges, the Court notes that the Ninth Circuit has found it satisfied

27 when a plaintiff challenges a law on constitutional grounds. In Valle del Sol, the plaintiff

28 brought a pre-enforcement challenge to an immigration-related law on Supremacy Clause

- 12 -

1 grounds. 732 F.3d at 1015. The Ninth Circuit cited the constitutional interest language

2 and then found that the plaintiff had standing because she “has established a credible

3 threat of prosecution under this statute, which she challenges on constitutional grounds.”

4 Id. Here also, Puente’s members have established a credible threat of prosecution and

5 challenge the identity theft laws under the Supremacy Clause.

6

iii. First Factor Conclusion.

7

Three of Puente’s members have shown that they are suffering an injury-in-fact

8 due to the credible threat of prosecution they face under the identity theft laws. This

9 injury is traceable to Defendants who are enforcing the laws, and a favorable decision for

10 Plaintiffs would redress this injury by enjoining such enforcement. Plaintiffs have made

11 a clear showing that the three members of Puente would have standing to sue in their own

12 right.

13

b. Remaining Factors of Associational Standing.

14

The second factor for associational standing is whether “the interests [Puente]

15 seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purposes.” Ecological Rights, 230

16 F.3d at 1147. This prong requires only “mere pertinence between litigation subject and

17 organizational purpose.” Presidio Golf Club v. Nat’l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153, 1159

18 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Humane Soc’y of the United States v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 58

19 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Puente’s mission is to “develop, educate, and empower migrant

20 communities to enhance the quality of life of our community members.” Doc. 104 at 5;

21 Doc. 30-4, ¶¶ 6, 9. The subject matter of this litigation – identity theft laws applied to

22 unauthorized aliens – is pertinent to this organizational mission.

23

The third factor is also satisfied because “neither the claim asserted nor the relief

24 requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Ecological

25 Rights, 230 F.3d at 1147. The individual members of Puente would assert the same right

26 being asserted by Plaintiffs – the right not to be prosecuted under unconstitutional laws –

27 and their individual backgrounds and circumstances would be irrelevant to determining

28 the constitutionality of the identity theft laws.

- 13 -

1

The Court finds that Puente has made a clear showing that it satisfies the three

2 requirements for associational standing.

3

2. Direct Standing of Puente.5

4

A “concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities – with the

5 consequent drain on the organization’s resources –” is sufficient to confer direct standing

6 on an organization. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982). The

7 Ninth Circuit has “interpreted Havens to stand for the proposition that an organization

8 may satisfy the Article III requirement of injury in fact if it can demonstrate:

9 (1) frustration of its organizational mission; and (2) diversion of its resources to combat

10 the [effects of the particular law] in question.” Smith v. Pac. Properties & Dev. Corp.,

11 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899,

12 905 (9th Cir. 2002)). An organization cannot, however, “‘manufacture the injury by

13 incurring litigation costs or simply choosing to spend money fixing a problem that

14 otherwise would not affect the organization at all. It must instead show that it would

15 have suffered some other injury if it had not diverted resources to counteracting the

16 problem.’” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1018 (quoting La Asociacion de Trabajadores de

17 Lake Forest v. Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted)).

18

Puente Arizona has established standing under this test. The declaration of Carlos

19 Garcia, the executive director of Puente, establishes that Puente is a community-based

20 organization with more than two-hundred members, many of whom are unauthorized

21 aliens. Doc. 30-4. Puente serves its members through English classes, “know-your rights

22 workshops,” and other educational programs. Mr. Garcia knows many members who

23 have used false information to obtain employment and who face prosecution under the

24 identity theft laws. Mr. Garcia’s declaration shows that enforcement of the identity theft

25

26

5 The Court need “only conclude that one of the plaintiffs has standing in order to

27

consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim,” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1014, but the Court will address the standing of all Plaintiffs because Defendants’ motion to dismiss

28 challenges that standing, Doc. 53 at 5.

- 14 -

1 laws has injured Puente Arizona in two ways. First, many Puente members, including

2 leaders, have reduced their participation in Puente’s activities because the identity theft

3 laws have caused financial difficulties and made them afraid of arrest and retaliation.

4 See, e.g., Doc. 30-4, ¶¶ 16, 20-21, 24, 26. Second, Puente has diverted substantial

5 resources to respond to the workplace raids through which the MCSO has enforced the

6 identity theft laws. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 28-40. The declaration of Noemi Romero, a member

7 of Puente, corroborates Mr. Garcia’s declaration. Doc. 30-6 (describing how Puente

8 helped Ms. Romero after she had been arrested during a workplace raid).

9

These are the kind of injuries that the Ninth Circuit has found sufficient to confer

10 direct standing on an organization. In Valle del Sol, a group of plaintiffs challenged an

11 Arizona law that criminalized the act of harboring or transporting unauthorized aliens.

12 732 F.3d at 1012-13. Through written declarations, various organizations claimed that

13 the law deterred participation and required them to divert resources to educate their

14 members. Id. at 1018. Valle del Sol found that the organizations had made a clear

15 showing of injury. Id.; see also Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v.

16 Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding organizational

17 standing at the preliminary injunction stage because the organization had “investigated

18 Roommate’s alleged violations and, in response, started new education and outreach

19 campaigns targeted at discriminatory roommate advertising”).

20

Puente has shown that enforcement of the identity theft laws has deterred

21 participation, thereby frustrating its mission, and forced it to divert resources. This is an

22 injury fairly traceable to the conduct of Defendants that would be redressed by a

23 favorable decision. Puente has made a clear showing of its direct standing.

24

C. Reverend Frederick-Gray.

25

Reverend Frederick-Gray claims standing as a Maricopa County taxpayer.

26 Doc. 23, ¶¶ 165-68. She objects to the Maricopa County Defendants’ enforcement of the

27 identity theft laws as an illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds. Id.; see Doc. 30-8

28 (Reverend Frederick-Gray’s Declaration). Defendants argue that Reverend Frederick-

- 15 -

1 Gray’s status as a taxpayer is insufficient to confer standing. Doc. 53 at 7-10. But

2 Defendants conflate the standards for federal and state taxpayer standing with the

3 standards for municipal taxpayer standing. Taxpayers generally are not able to challenge

4 an illegal expenditure of federal or state funds. See Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S.

5 447, 487-88 (1923) (finding that the “relation of a taxpayer of the United States to the

6 federal government . . . . is shared with millions of others, [and] is comparatively minute

7 and indeterminable”); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 344-46 (2006)

8 (finding that state taxpayers have no standing to challenge state tax or spending decisions

9 simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers).

10

The Supreme Court has recognized a different standard for municipal taxpayer

11 standing:

12

The interest of a taxpayer of a municipality in the application of its moneys

is direct and immediate and the remedy by injunction to prevent their

13

misuse is not inappropriate. It is upheld by a large number of state cases

and is the rule of this court. . . . The reasons which support the extension of

14

the equitable remedy to a single taxpayer in such cases are based upon the

peculiar relation of the corporate taxpayer to the corporation which is not

15

without some resemblance to that subsisting between stockholder and

private corporation.

16

Frothingham, 262 U.S. at 486-87 (citations omitted); see also DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S.

17

at 349 (noting the separate standard for municipal taxpayer standing). Although the

18

reasoning in Frothingham “could be questioned in an age in which some cities boast

19

populations in the millions,” Smith v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 641 F.3d 197,

20

210 (6th Cir. 2011), courts still adhere to its holding on municipal taxpayer standing. See

21

id.; Pelphrey v. Cobb Cnty., Ga., 547 F.3d 1263, 1280-81 (11th Cir. 2008); United States

22

v. City of New York, 972 F.2d 464, 470-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d

23 765, 770 (9th Cir. 1991); D.C. Common Cause v. D.C., 858 F.2d 1, 4-5 (D.C. Cir. 1988).6

24

25

6 In his reply brief, Defendant Arpaio argues that the term ‘municipal’ can only

26

mean a city or town and does not apply to county taxpayers. Doc. 116 at 6. But courts have applied the doctrine of municipal taxpayer standing to county taxpayers. See

27

Pelphrey v. Cobb Cnty., Ga., 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008); We Are Am./Somos Am., Coal. of Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Ariz.

28

2011). This is consistent with how Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) defines the term ‘municipal’: “Of or relating to a city, town, or local governmental unit.”

Furthermore, courts in other contexts have found that the term municipal includes county

- 16 -

1

The Ninth Circuit has applied the “requirement of a pocketbook injury” to

2 municipal taxpayer standing. Cammack, 932 F.2d at 770. This means that “municipal

3 taxpayer standing simply requires the ‘injury’ of an allegedly improper expenditure of

4 municipal funds[.]” Id.; see also Barnes–Wallace v. City of San Diego, 530 F.3d 776,

5 786 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[M]unicipal taxpayers must show an expenditure of public funds to

6 have standing.”); We Are Am./Somos Am., Coal. of Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of

7 Supervisors, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1108 (D. Ariz. 2011) (finding that “‘improper

8 expenditure of public funds’ is the crux of any claim that a municipal taxpayer satisfies

9 the injury in fact prong of constitutional standing”). This standard is less stringent than

10 that applied for federal and state taxpayer standing, as there is a “direct and immediate”

11 relation of a taxpayer with her municipality. See DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S. at 349.

12

There is some uncertainty as to whether a municipal taxpayer must prove the

13 amount that a municipality has spent enforcing an unconstitutional law. See, e.g.,

14 Cammack, 932 F.2d at 771 (noting that plaintiffs “specifically have stated the amount of

15 funds appropriated and allegedly spent”); We Are Am., 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1110 (noting

16 that although an allegation of improper expenditure is sufficient to survive a motion to

17 dismiss, proof of the amount expended may be necessary later in the case). The Court

18 finds that proof of the amount expended on enforcing the identity theft laws is not

19 necessary for Reverend Frederick-Gray to make a clear showing of standing. The record

20 shows that the Maricopa County Defendants spent taxpayer dollars arresting, jailing, and

21 convicting Plaintiff Sara Arreola under A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3). See Doc. 69-1 at 34;

22 Doc. 30-7. The precise amount that Defendants spent on this action is irrelevant to the

23 essential nature of Reverend Frederick-Gray’s alleged injury – the improper expenditure

24 of taxpayer funds. This injury is fairly traceable to Defendants’ conduct in enforcing the

25 identity theft laws, and a favorable decision would redress Reverend Frederick-Gray’s

26 injury by preventing further expenditures for enforcement of the identity theft laws. See,

27

28 governments. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (finding that municipal liability under § 1983 applied to a county government).

- 17 -

1 e.g., We Are Am., 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1111; Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 397-98 (7th

2 Cir. 2006) (“Such an injury is redressed not by giving the tax money back . . . but by

3 ending the unconstitutional spending practice.”) (citations omitted). The Court finds that

4 Reverend Frederick-Gray has made a clear showing of standing.

5 III. Preliminary Injunction.

6

A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should

7 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

8 Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright,

9 A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)).

10 An injunction may be granted when the movant shows that “‘he is likely to succeed on

11 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

12 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public

13 interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th

14 Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In

15 this circuit, a preliminary injunction may also be issued when a plaintiff shows that

16 “‘serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips

17 sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.’” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F. 3d 1127,

18 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.

19 2008)). The movant has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council

20 of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

21

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

22

Plaintiffs base their request for a preliminary injunction on their claim that the

23 identity theft laws are preempted under the Supremacy Clause. “The Supremacy Clause

24 provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the

25 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any

26 State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2500 (quoting U.S. Const.

27 art. VI, cl. 2). Under this rule, “Congress has the power to preempt state law.” Crosby v.

28 Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000). “‘[T]he purpose of Congress is

- 18 -

1 the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.’” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565

2 (2009) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)). The preemption

3 doctrine consists of three well-recognized classes: express, field, and conflict preemption.

4 Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2500-01. Express preemption occurs when Congress “withdraw[s]

5 specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption

6 provision.” Id. (citing Whiting, 131 S. Ct. at 1974-75). Field preemption precludes states

7 “from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has

8 determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.” Id. at 2501 (citing Gade v.

9 Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 115 (1992)). Conflict preemption occurs

10 “where ‘compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,’

11 Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963), and in

12 those instances where the challenged state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the

13 accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,’ Hines v.

14 Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).” Id. In resolving preemption challenges to state

15 laws, “courts should assume that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not

16 superseded ‘unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Id. (quoting

17 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)).

18

Plaintiffs do not claim that the identity theft laws are expressly preempted. They

19 rely instead on field and conflict preemption.

20

1. Purpose and Effect of Identity Theft Laws.

21

Before discussing field and conflict preemption, the Court must address

22 Defendants’ argument that preemption analysis does not apply because the identity theft

23 laws are facially neutral as to immigration and unauthorized aliens. See, e.g., Doc. 60 at

24 9-12; Doc. 75 at 11-13. The challenged laws are facially neutral. They criminalize use

25 of the personal identifying information of another person, whether real or fictitious, with

26 the intent to obtain or continue employment, regardless of the immigration status of the

27 person using the information. A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A), 13-2009(A). They apply equally to

28 unauthorized aliens and United States citizens.

- 19 -

1

In a preemption case, however, the Court may consider not only the face of a state

2 law, but also its purpose and effect.7 See New York State Conference of Blue Cross &

3 Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 658 (1995) (considering the

4 “purpose and the effects” of the challenged state law). This requires consideration of the

5 “purpose and intent of the body passing the law at issue,” Tillison v. City of San Diego,

6 406 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005), and “any specific expressions of legislative intent in

7 the statute itself as well as the legislative history,” Cal. Tow Truck Ass’n v. City & Cnty.

8 of San Francisco, 693 F.3d 847, 859 (9th Cir. 2012).

9

In assessing the impact of a state law on a federal scheme, courts “have refused to

10 rely solely on the legislature’s professed purpose and have looked as well to the effects of

11 the law.” Gade, 505 U.S. at 105; see also English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 84

12 (1990). “[W]hen considering the purpose of a challenged statute, [courts are] not bound

13 by ‘[t]he name, description or characterization given it by the legislature or the courts of

14 the State,’ but will determine for [themselves] the practical impact of the law.” Hughes v.

15 Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336 (1979) (cited by Gade, 505 U.S. at 106) (citation omitted).

16 A state law may not “frustrate the operation of federal law [even if] the state legislature in

17 passing its law had some purpose in mind other than one of frustration.” Perez v.

18 Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 651-52 (1971).

19

Here, a primary purpose and effect of the identity theft laws is to impose criminal

20 penalties on unauthorized aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized employment. The

21 titles of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 – the “Legal Arizona Workers’ Act” and “Employment

22 of Unauthorized Aliens” – reflect a clear intent to regulate employment of unauthorized

23 aliens. The bills that enacted the identity theft laws included other provisions that related

24 almost entirely to employment of unauthorized aliens, as discussed above. The identity

25

26

7 Defendants argue that because the language of the identity theft laws is

27

unambiguous, the Court should not consider legislative purpose and history. The cases they cite, however, address issues of statutory construction, not preemption. See, e.g.,

28

United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 606 (1986); Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981); Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108

(1980).

- 20 -

1 theft laws will also have the most impact on unauthorized aliens, who often use the

2 “personal identifying information” of another person to “obtain or continue”

3 employment. See, e.g., Doc. 30-3 at 51 (MCSO News Release, stating that “100% of all

4 suspects found to be committing identity theft to gain employment were illegal aliens”).

5

The legislative history also indicates a purpose to regulate unauthorized aliens

6 who seek employment. When arguing in support of H.B. 2779’s amendment to A.R.S.

7 § 13-2009(A), Senator O’Halleran stated that people convicted under the identity theft

8 law would be encouraged to “self-deport” instead of serving long prison sentences.

9 Doc. 30-3 at 45. Senator Robert Burns supported H.B. 2779 because it would show that

10 Arizona was tough on illegal immigration. Id. at 42. Similarly, Representative Russell

11 Pearce – a sponsor of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 (Doc. 30-2 at 55, 69) – made clear that

12 H.B. 2779 was designed to address the problem of illegal immigration. Doc. 30-3 at 4-7.

13 When signing H.B. 2779 into law, Governor Napolitano noted that a “state like Arizona

14 [has] no choice but to take strong action to discourage the further flow of illegal

15 immigration through our borders.” 2007 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 279 (H.B. 2779) (West).

16

Defendants provide no legislative history that shows a contrary intent. Indeed,

17 Defendants suggested during oral argument that there simply is no legislative history

18 pertaining to the identity theft laws. Doc. 111 at 51-52. They argued that because H.B.

19 2779 and H.B. 2745 contain multiple provisions, the Court cannot connect the legislative

20 history to the specific identity theft provisions at issue in this case. The Court finds this

21 argument unpersuasive because the various provisions of the bills all relate to the

22 employment of unauthorized aliens.

23

Considering the text, purpose, and effect of the identity theft laws, the Court finds

24 that they are aimed at imposing criminal penalties on unauthorized aliens who seek or

25 engage in unauthorized employment in the State of Arizona. It is therefore appropriate to

26 consider the preemptive effect of federal immigration law.

27

2. Field Preemption.

28

“States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting

- 21 -

1 within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive

2 governance.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501. “[F]ield preemption can be inferred either

3 where there is a regulatory framework ‘so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for

4 the States to supplement it’ or where the ‘federal interest [is] so dominant that the federal

5 system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.’”

6 Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501). “Where Congress

7 occupies an entire field, . . . even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”

8 Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501.

9

When asked during oral argument to identify the precise field occupied by

10 Congress, Plaintiffs’ counsel identified two: the regulation of unauthorized-alien

11 employment and the regulation of unauthorized-alien fraud to circumvent the federal

12 employment verification system. Doc. 111 at 18. In Arizona, the Supreme Court did not

13 conclude that Congress had occupied the field of unauthorized-alien employment.

14 Although it noted that Congress has regulated that field extensively, it applied conflict

15 preemption in striking down an Arizona law that made it a crime for unauthorized aliens

16 to seek employment. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2503-05. If the Supreme Court did not find

17 the field of unauthorized-alien employment preempted, this Court is not likely to either.

18

The narrower field identified by Plaintiffs – unauthorized-alien fraud in seeking

19 employment – has been heavily and comprehensively regulated by Congress. As noted

20 above, Congress requires employers to verify the authorized status of aliens seeking

21 employment and has established an entire federal system for employment verification.

22 Employers must comply with the program and verify that applicants are authorized to

23 work in the United States, and applicants must submit specified documents for use in the

24 verification system. To combat fraud in obtaining employment, IRCA makes it a federal

25 crime for an applicant to use a false identification document for the purpose of satisfying

26 the federal employment verification system. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b). IRCA also expands

27 the crimes for selling, making, or using fraudulent immigration documents to include

28 those used “as evidence of authorized . . . employment in the United States.” Id.

- 22 -

1 § 1546(a). And IRCA specifically identifies other federal criminal statutes that can be

2 applied to fraud in the employment verification process. See Pub. L. 99-603, § 101

3 (adding 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) and listing applicable statutes in Title 18, §§ 1001 [false

4 statements], 1028 [fraud in connection with identity documents], 1546, and 1621

5 [perjury]).

6

Congress has also enacted laws that impose civil penalties on persons who use

7 false documents to satisfy the employment verification system. 8 U.S.C. § 1324c. And

8 Congress has made the use of false employment documents a basis for deportation. 8

9 U.S.C. § 1227; see also id. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (making those who make false claims to

10 citizenship, including for purposes of establishing eligibility for employment,

11 inadmissible and thus ineligible for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent

12 resident).

13

Congress has even regulated the law enforcement use that may be made of

14 documents submitted for federal employment verification. IRCA provides that any

15 information employees submit to indicate their work status “may not be used” for

16 purposes other than prosecution under specified federal criminal statutes for fraud,

17 perjury, and related conduct – an evident attempt to limit states from using these

18 documents to prosecute crimes. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5), (d)(2)(F)-(G).

19

These provisions evince an intent to occupy the field of regulating fraud against

20 the federal employment verification system. Congress has imposed every kind of penalty

21 that can arise from an unauthorized alien’s use of false documents to secure employment

22 – criminal, civil, and immigration – and has expressly limited States’ use of federal

23 employment verification documents. The Court concludes that Congress has occupied

24 the field of unauthorized-alien fraud in obtaining employment. As a result, the identity

25 theft laws, which have the purpose and effect of regulating the same field, are likely

26 preempted.

27

In United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013), the Fourth

28 Circuit interpreted the same federal laws that are at issue here and found that they

- 23 -

1 occupied the field of creating, possessing, and using fraudulent immigration documents.

2 At issue was a South Carolina law that made it unlawful for a person to display or

3 possess a false form of identification for the purpose of proving lawful presence in the

4 United States. Id. at 532. South Carolina argued that the law did not relate to

5 immigration and instead addressed ordinary fraud. Id. The Fourth Circuit disagreed,

6 finding that the law was “field preempted in that Congress has passed several laws

7 dealing with creating, possessing, and using fraudulent immigration documents.” Id. at

8 533 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(1)-(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1546). Although the state law in

9 South Carolina dealt with use of false identification to “prove lawful presence” – not to

10 “obtain or continue employment” – the reasoning in South Carolina supports the Court’s

11 conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Congress has occupied

12 the field of regulating fraud in the employment verification process. Other cases also

13 support this conclusion. See, e.g., Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2503 (finding that federal alien

14 registration laws occupied a field); Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67 (same); Valle del Sol, 732

15 F.3d at 1026 (finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1324 occupied the field of regulating the

16 transportation and harboring of unauthorized aliens).

17

3. Conflict Preemption.

18

Conflict preemption may occur if a state law “‘stands as an obstacle to the

19 accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’”

20 Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501 (quoting Hines, 312 U.S. at 67). But direct conflict between

21 the state and federal law is not required. Even when state and federal laws have the same

22 general objective, an “inconsistency of sanctions” between the two laws may

23 “undermine[] the congressional calibration of force.” Crosby, 530 U.S. at 380. As the

24 Supreme Court has explained, a “‘[c]onflict in technique can be fully as disruptive to the

25 system Congress enacted as conflict in overt policy.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505

26 (quoting Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 287 (1971)).

27

Arizona’s identity theft laws pursue essentially the same purpose as the federal

28 statutes described above – they seek to deter unauthorized aliens from obtaining

- 24 -

1 employment through the use of fraudulent documents. But the two sets of laws adopt

2 different sanctions. The Arizona identity theft laws include only a criminal sanction.

3 They make the use of false documents to obtain employment a felony offense punishable

4 by a prison term that may exceed five years. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2008, 13-2009; 13-702,

5 13-703 (sentencing statutes). Under the federal scheme, federal authorities have a range

6 of options. They may impose civil penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1324c or immigration

7 consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 and § 1182(a)(6)(C). They may pursue criminal

8 sanctions under 18 U.S.C. § 1546, but only for prison sentences of five years or less. Id.

9 § 1546(b).

10

The overlapping penalties created by the Arizona identity theft statutes, which

11 “layer additional penalties atop federal law,” likely result in conflict preemption.

12 Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia, 691 F.3d 1250, 1267

13 (11th Cir. 2012). The Arizona laws “conflict[] with the federal scheme by divesting

14 federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute these crimes.” Valle del Sol, 732

15 F.3d at 1027. As the Supreme Court has explained, “‘conflict is imminent’ whenever

16 ‘two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same activity.’” Wisconsin Dep’t of

17 Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 286 (1986) (quoting

18 Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U.S. 485, 498-99 (1953)).

19

In Arizona, the Supreme Court considered an Arizona law similar in nature to the

20 identity theft laws. The law made it a state misdemeanor for “an unauthorized alien to

21 knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee

22 or independent contractor.” 132 S. Ct. at 2503. After analyzing the relevant provisions

23 of IRCA, the Court found:

24

Arizona law would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress

with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens. Although [the Arizona

25

law] attempts to achieve one of the same goals as federal law – the

deterrence of unlawful employment – it involves a conflict in the method of

26

enforcement. The Court has recognized that a “[c]onflict in technique can

be fully as disruptive to the system Congress enacted as conflict in overt

27

policy.”

28 Id. at 2504-05 (citations omitted). This reasoning applies here. The Court finds that

- 25 -

1 Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the identity theft laws are conflict

2 preempted.

3

4. Defendants’ Arguments.

4

In addition to their argument regarding the laws’ facial neutrality, Defendants

5 make four arguments for why there is no preemption in this case. The Court will address

6 each.

7

First, Defendants argue that because there are constitutional applications of the

8 identity theft laws – namely, to United States citizens – Plaintiffs’ facial preemption

9 challenge must fail. Doc. 60 at 11-12. Relying on United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S.

10 739, 745 (1987), Defendants argue that a facial preemption challenge can succeed only if

11 the challenger can show “that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would

12 be valid.” The same argument was made in Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297

13 (3rd Cir. 2013), another case involving a preemption challenge to an immigration-related

14 law. The Third Circuit found that “no part of the majority opinion in Arizona, and no

15 part of Whiting, references Salerno at all. . . . That approach would reject a conflict

16 preemption claim in a facial challenge whenever a defendant can conjure up just one

17 hypothetical factual scenario in which implementation of the state law would not directly

18 interfere with federal law.” Id. at 313 n.22. The Court agrees. A law “is not saved from

19 pre-emption simply because the State can demonstrate some additional effect outside of

20 the [preempted area].” Gade, 505 U.S. at 107.

21

Second, Defendants emphasize that IRCA expressly preempts “any State or local

22 law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws)

23 upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized

24 aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2). Defendants argue that because the express preemption

25 provision is silent as to laws that impose sanctions on unauthorized employees, Congress

26 has impliedly permitted states to pass such laws. Doc. 69 at 11-12. The Supreme Court

27 rejected this argument in Arizona: “the existence of an ‘express pre-emption provisio[n]

28 does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles’ or impose a ‘special

- 26 -

1 burden’ that would make it more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling

2 outside the clause.” 132 S. Ct. at 2504-05 (quoting Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,

3 529 U.S. 861, 869-72 (2000)) (emphasis in original).

4

Third, Defendant Montgomery argues that because he applies the identity theft

5 laws in a nondiscriminatory manner, without reference to a person’s immigration status,

6 the laws cannot be preempted. Doc. 75 at 14-22. Defendant Montgomery emphasizes

7 that he did not lobby for the identity theft laws and has no control over how Sheriff

8 Arpaio enforces the laws. Id. These points may well be true, but the issue is not how Mr.

9 Montgomery enforces the identity theft laws. The issue is whether federal immigration

10 law preempts those laws, a question that does not turn on Mr. Montgomery’s

11 enforcement practices.

12

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not overcome the presumption

13 against preemption. Doc. 60 at 12; Doc. 69 at 7; Doc. 75 at 7-8; As the Supreme Court

14 explained in Arizona, “[i]n preemption analysis, courts should assume that the historic

15 police powers of the States are not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest

16 purpose of Congress.” 132 S.Ct. at 2501 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The

17 Court need not decide at this stage whether the regulation of fraud in employment by

18 unauthorized aliens is an area of historic state police powers. Even applying the

19 presumption, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because

20 comprehensive regulation of unauthorized-alien fraud in obtaining employment is a clear 21 and manifest purpose of Congress.8

22

B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm.

23

Having established Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the next issue is

24 whether Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the protection of a

25 preliminary injunction. Generally, courts of equity should not act when the moving party

26

8 Defendant Arizona argues that the presumption against preemption requires a 27 finding that the state law is preempted “beyond a reasonable doubt,” Doc. 60 at 12 (citing

28

Zadrozny v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2013)), but this is a statelaw standard, not the standard that applies in this federal case. See, e.g., Arizona v.

Brown, 85 P.3d 109, 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).

- 27 -

1 “will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

2 37, 43-44 (1971). Plaintiffs have the burden to establish that there is a likelihood – not

3 just a possibility – that they will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not

4 entered. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 21-23. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he key

5 word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of

6 money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough.

7 The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a

8 later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of

9 irreparable harm.” Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (emphasis in original)

10 (citation omitted); see also Rent–A–Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance

11 Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).

12

As discussed above, three members of Puente face a credible threat of prosecution

13 under the identity theft laws. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have shown that these laws are

14 likely to be found unconstitutional. “[I]f an individual or entity faces the imminent threat

15 of enforcement of a preempted state law and the resulting injury may not be remedied by

16 monetary damages, the individual or entity is likely to suffer irreparable harm.” Valle del

17 Sol v. Whiting, No. CV 10-1061-PHX-SRB, 2012 WL 8021265, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5,

18 2012), aff’d, 732 F.3d at 1029 (“[Plaintiffs have] demonstrated a credible threat of

19 prosecution under the statute . . . . Thus, the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of

20 irreparable harm.”). The irreparable injury stems from the emotional, reputational, and

21 work-related harms that accompany an illegitimate prosecution. Thus, the Court “may

22 properly enjoin “state officers ‘who threaten and are about to commence proceedings,

23 either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected [by] an

24 unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution.’” Morales v. Trans World

25 Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992) (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 156

26 (1908)).

27

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ six-year delay in bringing this lawsuit shows that

28 their injury is not irreparable. Doc. 69 at 18-20; Doc. 75 at 22-23. A plaintiff’s delay

- 28 -

1 in bringing suit can indicate that the asserted injury is not irreparable. “‘A preliminary

2 injunction is sought upon the theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to

3 protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of

4 need for speedy action.’” Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211,

5 1213 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Gillette Co. v. Ed Pinaud, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 618, 622

6 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)). Delay, however, “is but a single factor to consider in evaluating

7 irreparable injury; courts are ‘loath to withhold relief solely on that ground.’” Arc of

8 California v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lydo, 745 F.2d at

9 1214). “Although a plaintiff’s failure to seek judicial protection can imply ‘the lack of

10 need for speedy action,’ such tardiness is not particularly probative in the context of

11 ongoing, worsening injuries.” Id. at 990 (citations omitted).

12

Delay is not decisive here. As Plaintiffs explain, the case law concerning the

13 preemptive effect of federal immigration law has dramatically expanded over the past

14 few years. Two cases that are key to Plaintiffs’ arguments – Arizona and Valle del Sol –

15 were decided recently. “[W]aiting to file for preliminary relief until a credible case for

16 irreparable harm can be made is prudent rather than dilatory.” Arc of California, 757

17 F.3d at 991. Puente, suing on behalf of its members, has shown a credible threat of 18 prosecution and, therefore, a likelihood of irreparable harm.9

19

C. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest.

20

The Court finds that the balance of equities tips in favor of Plaintiffs. Enjoining

21 the enforcement of laws that are likely preempted will impose little hardship on

22 Defendants. This is particularly true where Defendants will continue to have other laws

23 with which they can combat identity theft. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008, 13-2009.

24 Plaintiffs, in contrast, have shown a likelihood of irreparable harm if the laws are not

25 enjoined.

26 9 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable
27 harm to the members on whose behalf Puente is suing, the Court need not address the 28 likelihood of irreparable harm to other Plaintiffs.

- 29 -

1

The Court also finds that the public interest favors an injunction. The public has

2 little interest in the enforcement of laws that are unconstitutional. The Court recognizes

3 that the crime of identity theft affects the lives of many Arizonans. See Doc. 75 at 25-26.

4 But the injunction does not leave Defendants unequipped to combat that crime.

5

D. Preliminary Injunction Conclusion.

6

Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are

7 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and that the

8 balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction. The Court therefore will grant

9 Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and enjoin Defendants from enforcing

10 A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3) and the portion of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) that addresses actions 11 committed “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.”10

12 IV. Motions to Dismiss.

13

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Equal

14 Protection Clause and against Maricopa County, and that the Court should strike

15 Plaintiffs’ complaint in whole or in part for containing impertinent and irrelevant

16 information. Doc. 53, Doc. 55. Defendants also make standing arguments the Court has

17 addressed above.

18

A. Equal Protection Claim.

19

“The first step in determining whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause

20 is to identify the classification that it draws.” Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d

21 692, 702 (9th Cir. 1997). The classification will help the Court determine whether

22

10 Defendant Arizona argues that the injunction should be limited to the named 23 plaintiffs. Doc. 60 at 17 (citing Zepeda v. INA, 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Ninth

24

Circuit has held that a preliminary injunction should be limited to individual plaintiffs unless the court has certified a class. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. The Ninth Circuit has

25

also held, however, that an injunction is not overbroad because it extends benefits to persons other than those before the Court “if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing

26

parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1501-02 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Puente seeks relief on behalf

27

of all its members, the Court concludes that the preliminary injunction should apply to the identity theft laws generally. As in Easyriders, requiring law enforcement officials to

28

distinguish between unauthorized aliens who are members of Puente and those who are not would be impractical, and a less than complete preliminary injunction would

therefore likely deny Puente the complete relief to which it is entitled. Id. at 1502.

- 30 -

1 “members of a certain group [are] being treated differently from other persons based on

2 membership in that group.” United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir.

3 1995). “Second, if it is demonstrated that a cognizable class is treated differently, the

4 court must analyze under the appropriate level of scrutiny whether the distinction made

5 between the groups is justified.” Id. (citing Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217-18 (1982)).

6

1. Classification.

7

A court may determine a law’s classifications by how the law discriminates (i.e.,

8 differentiates) between groups. A law may discriminate against a group of people in one

9 of three ways. First, the law may discriminate on its face, that is, by its explicit terms.

10 See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Second, the law, although neutral on its

11 face, may be administered in a discriminatory way. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118

12 U.S. 356 (1886). Third, the law, although neutral on its face and applied in accordance

13 with its terms, may have been enacted with a purpose of discriminating. See, e.g., Hunter

14 v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985).

15

Plaintiffs argue that the identity theft laws were enacted with a purpose of

16 discriminating. See Doc. 83 at 27-30. Specifically, they argue that the identity theft laws

17 discriminate against unauthorized aliens by penalizing conduct in which unauthorized

18 aliens are more likely to engage. Id. at 27. In proving a discriminatory purpose, “[p]roof

19 of discriminatory intent is required to show that state action having a disparate impact

20 violates the Equal Protection Clause.” McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th

21 Cir. 1999) (citing Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252,

22 265 (1977)). Plaintiffs must show that the State “selected or reaffirmed a particular

23 course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects

24 upon an identifiable group.” Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279

25 (1979). The Court may consider various sources of evidence in determining whether a

26 law was adopted “because of” its adverse effects on a group. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S.

27 at 264-68. “The historical background of the [law] is one evidentiary source, particularly

28 if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes.” Id. at 267. “The

- 31 -

1 legislative or administrative history [also] may be highly relevant, especially where there

2 are contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its

3 meetings, or reports.” Id. at 268.

4

Plaintiffs allegations, which must be taken as true in ruling on the motion to

5 dismiss, make a plausible claim that the identity theft laws were adopted “because of”

6 their adverse effects on unauthorized aliens. Plaintiffs allege that unauthorized aliens are

7 more likely than other people to use the “personal identifying information” of another to

8 “obtain or continue employment.” A.R.S. § 13-2008; see Doc. 83 at 27. Because of this,

9 Plaintiffs argue, there is no other group of employees as uniformly disadvantaged by the

10 identify theft statutes as unauthorized aliens. See Doc. 23, ¶¶ 97-98, 101-05, 126-27

11 (alleging that Defendants systematically enforce the identity theft laws against

12 unauthorized aliens). “[W]hen the adverse consequences of a law upon an identifiable

13 group are [inevitable], a strong inference that the adverse effects were desired can 14 reasonably be drawn.” Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279 n.25.11

15

Plaintiffs also allege discriminatory intent. The historical background of the

16 identity theft laws shows that the Arizona Legislature was passing numerous bills

17 directed at problems associated with unauthorized aliens. Doc. 23, ¶¶ 35-50. The

18 legislative history indicates that the legislature hoped the identity theft laws would

19 encourage unauthorized aliens to leave the country. See Doc. 23, ¶¶ 38-39, 55-64

20 (alleging that the identity theft laws were passed as part of a strategy of “attrition through

21 enforcement” towards unauthorized aliens). Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the identity 22 theft laws were passed with a purpose of discriminating against unauthorized aliens.12

23

11 In their reply brief, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege 24 sufficient facts to assert disparate impact and discriminatory purpose. Doc. 118 at 5-10.

25

Defendants also point to legislative history that shows a lack of discriminatory purpose. Id. In so arguing, Defendants mistake the appropriate standard for a motion to dismiss.

26

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the wellpled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

27

nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts in support of their equal protection claim.

28

12 Numerous Ninth Circuit cases state that “‘[o]nce the plaintiff establishes

governmental classification, it is necessary to identify a ‘similarly situated class’ against

- 32 -

1

2. Level of Scrutiny.

2

The level of scrutiny applied in an equal protection analysis depends on the

3 classification at issue. If a law classifies on the basis of race or alienage, the law must

4 satisfy strict scrutiny by a showing that the classification is necessary to achieve a

5 compelling government purpose. See, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432-33

6 (1984). If a law classifies on the basis of gender or legitimacy, the law must satisfy

7 intermediate scrutiny by a showing that classification has a substantial relationship to an

8 important government purpose. See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533

9 (1996). For all other classifications, a law must satisfy rational basis review by a

10 showing that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

11 See, e.g., Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 14 (1988). Plaintiffs argue that either a

12 “heightened scrutiny” or a rigorous rational basis review should apply. Doc. 83 at 30-34.

13 These are standards of review that do not fit neatly within the traditional categories.

14

a. Heightened Scrutiny.

15

Plaintiffs initially argue that some form of “heightened scrutiny” should apply.

16 Doc. 83 at 30. Relying on Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), they argue that the Court

17 should assess whether the identity theft laws further a substantial or important state

18 interest. Doc. 83 at 31. While “states must generally treat lawfully present aliens the

19

20

which the plaintiff’s class can be compared.’” Rosenbaum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Freeman v. City of Santa Ana,

21

68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs have not identified a similarly situated class and Defendants argue that this is a threshold requirement. See Doc. 118 at 4. The

22

Court concludes that the requirement of identifying a “similarly situated class” is a threshold requirement in only a minority of as-applied equal protection cases. See, e.g.,

23

Rosenbaum, 484 F.3d at 1153 (as-applied challenge to a noise ordinance); United States v. Arenas-Ortiz, 339 F.3d 1066, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2003) (as-applied selective prosecution

24

claim); Freeman, 68 F.3d at 1187 (as-applied challenge to police practices). Otherwise, the “similarly situated” requirement is simply a restatement of core Equal Protection

25

concerns, namely, that “‘all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982) (quoting F.S. Royster guano Co. v. Virginia, 253

26

U.S. 412, 415 (1920)). In many cases involving an equal protection challenge to a statute based on its discriminatory purpose, the Supreme Court has not discussed or applied the

27

“similarly situated” requirement. See, e.g., Feeney, 442 U.S. at 256; Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 252; see also Giovanna Shay, Similarly Situated, 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev.

28

581, 598 (2011) (noting that the ‘similarly situated’ requirement “has never been viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as a threshold hurdle to obtaining equal protection review on

the merits”).

- 33 -

1 same as citizens, and state classifications based on alienage are subject to strict scrutiny

2 review,” Korab v. Fink, 748 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (citing In re

3 Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 719-22 (1973)), the same is not true for unauthorized aliens.

4 “Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because their presence in this

5 country in violation of federal law is not a ‘constitutional irrelevancy.’” Plyler, 457 U.S.

6 at 223. Plyler considered the constitutionality of a Texas law that denied undocumented

7 alien children a free public school education. Id. at 205. The Court explained that

8 “undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal. Nor is

9 undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic since it is the product of

10 conscious, indeed unlawful action.” Id. at 220. The Court ultimately applied a form of

11 rational basis review to the law, finding that the law could not “be considered rational

12 unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.” Id. at 224.

13

This language of furthering “some substantial goal” is different from traditional

14 rational basis review, under which a court “will uphold the legislative classification so

15 long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.

16 620, 631 (1996). Plaintiffs argue that this “substantial goal” test should apply here. The

17 Court disagrees. Plyler’s holding was expressly grounded on the unique vulnerability of

18 children and the importance of education. The Court emphasized that the Texas law was

19 “directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal

20 characteristic over which children can have little control.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220. The

21 Court contrasted this with the situation of adult unauthorized aliens, whose presence is

22 “the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action.” Id. Because the present case does

23 not involve children and public education, the Court finds that a heightened scrutiny is

24 not appropriate.

25

b. Rigorous Rational Basis Review.

26

Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that a more “active” form of rational basis review is

27 required because the identity theft laws are motivated by animus or the desire to punish a

28 politically unpopular group. See Doc. 83 at 31. Ordinarily, courts apply rational basis

- 34 -

1 review in a highly deferential manner, upholding the challenged law “‘if there is any

2 reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the

3 classification.’” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993) (quoting FCC v. Beach

4 Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)). This approach reflects “deference to

5 legislative policy decisions” and a reluctance of courts “to judge the wisdom, fairness,

6 logic or desirability of those choices.” LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 421 (5th Cir.

7 2005). But “even the standard of rationality . . . must find some footing in the realities of

8 the subject addressed by the legislation.” Heller, 509 U.S. at 321 (1993).

9

Some cases, however, have applied a more rigorous form of rational basis review.

10 See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.

11 620 (1996); Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985); U.S. Dep’t of

12 Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973); Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011).

13 These cases involve laws motivated by “an improper animus” towards a politically

14 unpopular group. See, e.g., Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. When a law disadvantages an

15 unpopular group, there arises an “inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of

16 animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 634. This inference

17 cannot be overcome by any conceivable rational basis for the law. See Cleburne, 473

18 U.S. at 447-50. Rather, the state must demonstrate that the actual reason for the law was

19 not a desire to discriminate. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 634. If a court finds that the only

20 actual reason for the law is a desire to discriminate, the court will invalidate the law,

21 relying on the maxim that “a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular

22 group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534;

23 see also Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693 (finding that laws may not exist to “impose a

24 disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon” those of a particular class).

25

Plaintiffs allege that the identity theft laws are animated by an improper animus

26 towards unauthorized aliens. Plaintiffs cite numerous statements by legislators that

27 allegedly show hostility towards this group. See, e.g., Doc. 23, ¶ 56 (state representative

28 urging members not to stand back “while we wait the destruction of our country” and

- 35 -

1 “the destruction of neighborhoods” by illegal aliens); ¶ 64 (state senator saying he wanted

2 to make sure workers would be charged with a serious enough crime to guarantee they

3 “stay in jail” while the case is pending and then be immediately deported). Plaintiffs

4 allege that unauthorized aliens are a politically unpopular group that has been subjected

5 to frequent discrimination in Arizona.

6

The Court is unsure whether rigorous rational basis review applies to this case.

7 The cases applying rigorous rational basis review involved the denial of government

8 benefits, not the imposition of criminal penalties for clearly criminal conduct. See, e.g.,

9 Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2683 (surviving spouse of same-sex couple challenged a denial of

10 the spousal deduction tax benefit); Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 435-36 (challenge to a zoning

11 ordinance requiring a special use permit for houses for the mentally retarded); Moreno,

12 413 U.S. at 529-30 (challenge to a Food Stamp Act amendment that rendered ineligible

13 for certain benefits households containing unrelated persons). In addition, those cases

14 involved laws that disadvantaged otherwise law-abiding citizens, not persons who are

15 unlawfully present in the country and engaged in fraudulent activity. Because the case

16 law requires a more rigorous review when an improper animus is alleged, Plaintiffs have

17 alleged that the identity theft laws are the fruit of animus towards unauthorized aliens,

18 and this issue may be more fully illuminated at the summary judgment stage, the Court

19 will assume for purposes of the motion to dismiss that rigorous rational basis review 20 applies.13

21

3. Application.

22

Plaintiffs claim that the only actual reason for the identity theft laws was to punish

23 or harm a politically unpopular group – unauthorized aliens. See Doc. 83 at 31-34. They

24

13 The Court finds rigorous rational basis review to be problematic. The rational 25 basis test has long been viewed as reflecting the deference courts should afford to the

26

policy-making branches of government. The Court also finds this more rigorous rational basis review, with its lack of guiding principles, to be dangerously susceptible to

27

invoking a judge’s own policy preferences. These concerns notwithstanding, the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit plainly have applied a more active rational basis review in some

28

cases, and those cases constitute precedent binding on this Court. See Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1069 (D. Ariz. 2013), rev’d on other grounds,

757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014).

- 36 -

1 also argue that the identity theft laws “were not intended to address identifiable criminal

2 harms separate from the immigration issue.” Doc. 83 at 34; see Doc. 23, ¶ 65. Courts

3 have been reluctant to find that facially neutral criminal laws violate the Equal Protection

4 Clause. For example, numerous cases have rejected the argument that the stark

5 difference in punishment for crack cocaine offenses and simple powder cocaine offenses

6 violates equal protection. See United States v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 740-41 (1st Cir.

7 1994); United States v. Thompson, 27 F.3d 671, 678 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (collecting cases);

8 United States v. Haynes, 985 F.2d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs in those cases argued

9 that the difference was irrational and had a disparate impact on African-Americans, who

10 are more likely to use crack cocaine than Caucasians. See Singleterry, 29 F.3d at 740-41.

11

Here also, Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing the act of identity theft done “with

12 the intent to obtain or continue employment” will have a disparate impact on

13 unauthorized aliens. The difference, however, is that Plaintiffs have alleged that the

14 Arizona Legislature intended the disparate impact on unauthorized aliens, an allegation

15 that must be taken as true at this stage of the litigation. And the Court assumes for

16 purposes of this motion that a more rigorous rational basis review will apply – more

17 rigorous than the crack cocaine cases. See, e.g., United States v. Cyrus, 890 F.2d 1245,

18 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Applying this standard of review, the Court cannot conclude that

19 Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See

20 Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534.

21

Defendant Montgomery argues that he does not apply the identity theft laws in a

22 discriminatory manner and his actions therefore do not deny equal protection. Doc. 55 at

23 21-22. This argument misses the point. Plaintiffs attack the laws he is applying, not his

24 office’s prosecutorial decisions. If the identity theft laws are facially invalid because they

25 deny equal protection, the Court may enjoin him from enforcing those laws. The Court, 26 therefore, denies Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.14

27 14 Defendant Arpaio argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 42
28 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. 53 at 12-13. To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiffs must plausibly claim that Defendants (1) acted under the color of state law (2) to deprive

- 37 -

1

B. Maricopa County’s Liability Under § 1983.

2

Defendants argue that Maricopa County is not a proper defendant under § 1983

3 because (1) Sheriff Arpaio and County Attorney Montgomery are not final policymakers

4 for the County; (2) the County does not enforce the identity theft laws; and (3) Maricopa

5 County would be unable to legally comply with any injunctive relief the Court might

6 grant. Doc. 55 at 13-18. Plaintiffs counter that Maricopa County is liable because

7 Sheriff Arpaio is a final policymaker and the County finances the enforcement of the

8 identity theft laws through tax revenues. Doc. 83 at 23-25.

9

Under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978),

10 municipal liability attaches when a plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivation was the

11 product of a policy or custom of the local government. See also Fogel v. Collins, 531

12 F.3d 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2008). “For purposes of liability under Monell, a policy is a

13 deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . made from among various alternatives

14 by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the

15 subject matter in question.” Id. (quoting Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.

16 2002) (per curiam)) (internal quotations omitted). A municipal policy may include the

17 decision to enforce a state law. Evers v. Custer Cnty., 745 F.2d 1196, 1203-04 (9th Cir.

18 1984). Whether a state official is a final policy maker for purposes of municipal liability

19 is a question of state law. See Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 560 (9th

20 Cir. 2001). When determining whether an individual has final policymaking authority,

21 courts ask whether the individual at issue has authority “in a particular area, or on a

22 particular issue.” McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997).

23

The Arizona Constitution creates the elected office of sheriff for each county and

24 provides that the sheriff’s duties and powers “shall be as prescribed by law.” Ariz. Const.

25 art. XII, §§ 3-4. Under A.R.S. § 11-441, the sheriff is empowered to “[a]rrest and take

26

27 Plaintiffs of a constitutional right. Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th

28

Cir. 2009). Based on the foregoing analysis, Plaintiffs have stated a claim under § 1983. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants are enforcing a law that violates the

Equal Protection Clause.

- 38 -

1 before the nearest magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or who

2 have committed a public offense.” Id. “The purpose of this duty is the prompt and

3 orderly administration of criminal justice, including the Sheriff’s discretionary

4 investigatory determination of when enough evidence has been obtained to make an

5 arrest.” Guillory v. Greenlee Cnty., No. CV05-352-TUC-DCB, 2006 WL 2816600, at *4

6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2006). Under A.R.S. § 11-444, the local county is responsible for

7 paying the “actual and necessary expenses incurred by the sheriff in pursuit of criminals”

8 as well as additional expenses.

9

These provisions make Sheriff Arpaio a final policymaker for Maricopa County.

10 Unlike in McMillian, where the court found that the sheriff was a state but not a county

11 officer, Arizona law designates the sheriff as a county officer. See McMillian, 520 U.S.

12 at 788-89; see also A.R.S. § 11-401 (listing the sheriff as an officer of the county). The

13 Sheriff’s responsibility for criminal law enforcement makes him a person “whose edicts

14 or acts . . . may fairly be said to represent official policy[.]” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.

15 Sheriff Arpaio’s decision to enforce the identity theft laws, therefore, makes Maricopa

16 County liable for that action. See Evers, 745 F.2d at 1203-04.

17

Defendants argue that Maricopa County’s lack of control over Sheriff Arpaio’s

18 law-enforcement decisions shows that he is not a final policymaker for the County. See

19 Doc. 118 at 16-19. But the Arizona Court of Appeals has held that the Sheriff is the final

20 policymaker for the County on matters of jail management, Flanders v. Maricopa Cnty.,

21 54 P.3d 837, 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002), and the County has not explained, nor can the

22 Court discern, how the County has more control over the Sheriff’s jail-management

23 decisions than over his law-enforcement decisions. Flanders compels the conclusion that

24 Sheriff Arpaio is the final policymaker for the County on law-enforcement matters.

25 Furthermore, every district court to address this issue has held that Arizona counties are

26 liable for law-enforcement decisions of local sheriffs. See United States v. Maricopa

27 Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1083-84 (D. Ariz. 2012); Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598

28 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1038-39 (D. Ariz. 2009); Guillory, 2006 WL 2816600, at *3-5.

- 39 -

1

Maricopa County argues that its presence in this case could result in it being

2 “bound by an injunction that is not within its authority to comply with under Arizona

3 law.” Doc. 55 at 17. The County emphasizes that Arizona law gives it no control over

4 criminal law enforcement. Id. at 14 (citing A.R.S. § 11-251). This fact might limit the

5 County’s exposure to contempt or other remedies if an injunction is disregarded, but it

6 does not alter the fact that the County is a proper defendant under Monell. Due to this

7 finding, the Court need not decide whether County Attorney Montgomery is also an

8 official policymaker for the County.

9

C. Rule 8 and Motions to Strike.

10

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failing to comply

11 with Rule 8. Doc. 53 at 17; Doc. 55 at 6-7. The rule requires that a complaint contain “a

12 short and plain statement of the claim,” and that each “allegation be simple, concise, and

13 direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) & 8(d)(1). Defendants argue that the complaint violates the

14 rule because it “contains paragraph after paragraph of vague, conclusory and

15 disconnected allegations, unduly prejudicing [Defendants] by foreclosing reasonable

16 notice and fair opportunity to respond and raising the specter of unnecessary discovery.”

17 Doc. 55 at 7. The Court disagrees.

18

The Ninth Circuit has held that “verbosity or length is not by itself a basis for

19 dismissing a complaint based on Rule 8(a).” Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530

20 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); but see Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.

21 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of a

22 733-page complaint as prejudicial and showing bad faith). To qualify for dismissal, the

23 complaint must be so complex or confusing that a defendant could not readily discern the

24 allegations being made against him. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

25 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981).

26

Plaintiffs’ complaint contains 34 pages and 192 paragraphs. The complaint may

27 be long, but it is not so complex or confusing that Defendants are unable to discern the

28 allegations made against them. From its beginning, the complaint makes clear that this

- 40 -

1 case is about the constitutionality of the identity theft laws under the Supremacy and

2 Equal Protection Clauses. Doc. 23, ¶ 5. The complaint delineates the parties and their

3 interests in the case. Id., ¶¶ 9-16. It contains factual allegations that, although more

4 extensive than necessary, give substance to Plaintiffs’ claims. Id., ¶¶ 17-168. The

5 complaint also clearly states the requested forms of relief. Id., ¶¶ 180-92. This is not a

6 case where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief,

7 and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178.

8

Defendants have also move to strike numerous portions of the complaint. Doc. 53

9 at 18-25; Doc. 55 at 7-13. Under Rule 12(f), the “court may strike from a pleading an

10 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike are generally disfavored, as they involve a drastic

12 remedy and may be used as a “dilatory or harassing tactic.” 5C C. Wright, A. Miller, et

13 al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380 (3d ed.1998); see also Torres v. Goddard, No.

14 CV–06–2482–PHX–SMM, 2008 WL 1817994, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 22, 2008).

15 Defendants argue that dozens of paragraphs from the complaint are infirm for a variety of

16 reasons. They argue that specified paragraphs contain argumentative and inflammatory

17 allegations, immaterial and impertinent legislative history, vague and confusing

18 statements, as well as other problems. Defendants essentially invite the Court to place

19 the complaint under a microscope and assess whether each statement is pertinent to this

20 case. The Court declines the invitation. A party’s “assertions in its pleadings are not

21 evidence.” United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court 22 will deny Defendants’ motions to strike.15

23 V. Motions to Supplement.

24

Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed motions for leave to file supplemental

25 declarations, evidentiary records, responses, and surreplies. Docs. 84, 98, 103, 123.

26

15 As a separate argument, Defendant Arpaio asks the Court to strike paragraphs in 27 the complaint that contain allegations regarding the MCSO because the MCSO is a

28

“nonjural” entity. Doc. 53 at 16. The MCSO, however, is not named as a defendant in the complaint. See Doc. 23. The allegations regarding the MCSO are relevant to

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Arpaio.

- 41 -

1 Given the accelerated nature of the proceedings in this case, the importance of the issues,

2 and the lack of opposition to the motions, the Court will grant the motions. The Court

3 has read and considered the supplemental documents in rendering its decision.

4 IT IS ORDERED:

5

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30) is granted. Until

6

further order of the Court, Defendants are enjoined from enforcing A.R.S. §

7

2009(A)(3) and the portion of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) that addresses actions

8

committed “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.”

9

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike (Docs. 53, 55, 127) are denied.

10

3. Parties’ motions to supplement (Docs. 84, 98, 103, 123) are granted.

11

Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 42 -

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 6

1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

16

On January 5, 2015, the Court entered a preliminary injunction. Doc. 133.

17 Among other findings, the Court ruled that Defendant Maricopa County is liable for

18 Sheriff Arpaio’s law-enforcement decisions under § 1983 because the sheriff acts as a

19 final policymaker for the County when he enforces Arizona law. Id. at 38-40. The 20 County now asks the Court to reconsider this ruling or, in the alternative, to certify the 21 question to the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. 141. The Court will deny the motion.

22 I. 23 24

Motion for Reconsideration. A. Legal Standard. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

25 circumstances. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003). A 26 motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a 27 showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] 28 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani,

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 6

1 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient

2 basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL

3 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to ask the Court to

4 rethink its analysis. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.

5 1998); see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th

6 Cir. 1988).

7

B. Analysis.

8

“Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a local government may be liable for constitutional

9 torts committed by its officials according to municipal policy, practice, or custom.”

10 Weiner v. San Diego Cnty., 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Monell v. Dep’t

11 of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). “To hold a local government liable

12 for an official’s conduct, a plaintiff must first establish that the official (1) had final

13 policymaking authority ‘concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular

14 constitutional or statutory violation at issue’ and (2) was the policymaker for the local

15 governing body for the purposes of the particular act.” Id. (quoting McMillian v. Monroe

16 Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997)). “Although [the Court] must consider the state’s

17 legal characterization of the government entities which are parties to these actions,

18 federal law provides the rule of decision in section 1983 actions.” Streit v. Cnty. of L.A.,

19 236 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d

20 750, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 906 (2014).

21

In its previous ruling, the Court found, for purposes of § 1983, that Sheriff Arpaio

22 was a final policymaker for Maricopa County when making law-enforcement decisions.

23 The Court provided this explanation:

24

The Arizona Constitution creates the elected office of sheriff for

each county and provides that the sheriff’s duties and powers “shall be as

25

prescribed by law.” Ariz. Const. art. XII, §§ 3-4. Under A.R.S. § 11-441,

26

the sheriff is empowered to “[a]rrest and take before the nearest magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or who have committed

a public offense.” Id. “The purpose of this duty is the prompt and orderly

27

administration of criminal justice, including the Sheriff’s discretionary

investigatory determination of when enough evidence has been obtained to

28

make an arrest.” Guillory v. Greenlee Cnty., No. CV05-352-TUC-DCB,

2006 WL 2816600, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2006). Under A.R.S. § 11-

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 6

1

444, the local county is responsible for paying the “actual and necessary

expenses incurred by the sheriff in pursuit of criminals” as well as

2

additional expenses.

3

These provisions make Sheriff Arpaio a final policymaker for

Maricopa County. Unlike in McMillian, where the court found that the

4

sheriff was a state but not a county officer, Arizona law designates the

sheriff as a county officer. See McMillian, 520 U.S. at 788-89; see also

5

A.R.S. § 11-401 (listing the sheriff as an officer of the county). The

Sheriff’s responsibility for criminal law enforcement makes him a person

6

“whose edicts or acts . . . may fairly be said to represent official policy[.]”

Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. Sheriff Arpaio’s decision to enforce the identity

7

theft laws, therefore, makes Maricopa County liable for that action.

8

Defendants argue that Maricopa County’s lack of control over

Sheriff Arpaio’s law-enforcement decisions shows that he is not a final

9

policymaker for the County. See Doc. 118 at 16-19. But the Arizona Court

of Appeals has held that the Sheriff is the final policymaker for the County

10

on matters of jail management, Flanders v. Maricopa Cnty., 54 P.3d 837,

847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002), and the County has not explained, nor can the

11

Court discern, how the County has more control over the Sheriff’s jail-

management decisions than over his law-enforcement decisions. Flanders

12

compels the conclusion that Sheriff Arpaio is the final policymaker for the

County on law-enforcement matters. Furthermore, every district court to

13

address this issue has held that Arizona counties are liable for law-

enforcement decisions of local sheriffs. . . . Due to this finding, the Court

14

need not decide whether County Attorney Montgomery is also an official

policymaker for the County.

15

16 Doc. 133 at 38-40.1

17

The County again argues that it is not liable under § 1983 for Sheriff Arpaio’s

18 law-enforcement decisions because the County lacks control over the sheriff. Doc. 141.

19 The County highlights the history of the Arizona Constitution, relevant statutory law, and

20 a later ballot initiative to show that the intent of Arizona law is for the county sheriff to

21 be an elected official who is separate from and uncontrolled by the local county. Finally,

22 the County argues that the County Attorney is also not a final policymaker for the

23 County.

24

25

1 The following cases have found that the sheriff is a final policymaker for Maricopa County in the context of criminal law enforcement. United States v. Maricopa

26

Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1083-84 (D. Ariz. 2012); Mora v. Arpaio, No. CV-09-1719PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1562443, at *7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2011); Lovejoy v. Arpaio, No.

27

CV09-1912-PHX-NVW, 2010 WL 466010, at *12 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2010); Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1038-39 (D. Ariz. 2009); Guillory, 2006 WL

28

2816600, at *3-5. The following cases have found that the sheriff is a final policymaker for Maricopa County when administering jails. Wilson v. Maricopa Cnty., 463 F. Supp.

2d 987, 991 (D. Ariz. 2006); Flanders., 54 P.3d at 847.

- 3 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 6

1

Contrary to the County’s argument, a county’s lack of control over a sheriff is not

2 dispositive of its liability for his law-enforcement decisions under § 1983. When

3 deciding whether an official is a final policymaker for a municipality, courts look at a

4 variety of factors. These include how state law defines the official’s office, the scope of

5 the official’s duties, the source of the official’s salary and equipment, whether the

6 municipality indemnifies the official, as well as the extent of the municipality’s control

7 over the official. See, e.g., McMillian, 520 U.S. at 787-93; Goldstein, 715 F.3d at 755-

8 58; Brewster v. Shasta Cnty., 275 F.3d 803, 808-12 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, while a

9 municipality’s degree of control is relevant, it is not the only consideration.

10

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, the “task is not merely to weigh the amount of

11 control that the [state] and county board of supervisors possess over [the official];

12 instead, we must decide whether the [official] was acting on behalf of the state or the

13 county.” Goldstein, 715 F.3d at 755 (emphasis in original); see Brewster, 275 F.3d at

14 810 (“Merely because a county official exercises certain functions independently of other

15 political entities within the county does not mean that he does not act for the county.”).

16 Therefore, even if “the County and [Board of Supervisors] are not authorized to control

17 the Sheriff as to law enforcement,” Doc. 159 at 5, the County has not shown that the

18 Court’s decision was manifest error. Rather, the Court appropriately considered a

19 number of relevant factors – including the Arizona Constitution’s definition of the

20 sheriff’s office, the source of the sheriff’s funding, and the scope of his powers – and

21 found that these weighed in favor of finding the sheriff to be a final policymaker for the

22 County.

23

The County disagrees with the Court’s reliance on Flanders. While Flanders

24 dealt with the sheriff’s jail-management decisions, as opposed to his law-enforcement

25 decisions, the reasoning in Flanders certainly is relevant to this case. The Arizona Court

26 of Appeals held the County liable for the sheriff’s jail management policies under § 1983

27 even though the sheriff, as noted by the County here, is a separately elected county

28 official who is not directly controlled by the County Board of Supervisors. 54 P.3d at

- 4 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 5 of 6

1 847. The County’s attempt to distinguish Flanders from this case is unconvincing. See

2 Doc. 141 n.4. Jail management, like law enforcement, “involves discretion, judgment,

3 legal analysis and a balancing of constitutional rights.” Id. The County’s motion for

4 reconsideration is denied.

5 II. Certification of Question to Arizona Supreme Court.

6

The County asks the Court to certify the question of its liability to the Arizona

7 Supreme Court. This Court may certify a question of state law to the Arizona Supreme

8 Court when that question “may be determinative of the cause then pending in the

9 certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling

10 precedent in the decisions of the supreme court and the intermediate appellate courts of

11 this state.” A.R.S. § 12-1861. In addition to the fact that Flanders is a decision of an

12 intermediate Arizona appellate court, this section does not apply because a question of

13 state law would not be determinative. As already noted, “federal law provides the rule of

14 decision in section 1983 actions.” Streit, 236 F.3d at 560; see also Goldstein, 715 F.3d at

15 760-61 (“Though we must look at the relevant state law and state courts’

16 characterizations of that law, the final determination [of Monell liability] under 42 U.S.C.

17 § 1983 is a federal law statutory interpretation question[.]”); see Cortez v. Cnty. of L.A.,

18 294 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that “the determination of § 1983 liability is

19 governed by federal law”).

20

Admittedly, some cases have said that that “[w]hether a particular official has final

21 policymaking authority is a question of state law.” McMillian, 520 U.S. at 786 (emphasis

22 in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Read in context, however,

23 these cases are clear that the ultimate question of § 1983 liability is one of federal law.

24 See id. (“‘[The] federal question can be answered only after considering the provisions of

25 state law that define the agency’s character.’”) (quoting Regents of the Univ. of

26 California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 430 n.5 (1997)). Because the question of the County’s

27 liability under § 1983 for Sheriff Arpaio’s law-enforcement decisions is one of federal

28 and not state law, it is not appropriate for certification.

- 5 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 164 Filed 03/27/15 Page 6 of 6

1

IT IS ORDERED that the County’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 141) is

2 denied.

3

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 41

1 Anne Lai (admitted pro hac vice) alai@law.uci.edu
2 Sameer Ashar (admitted pro hac vice) sashar@law.uci.edu
3 University of California, Irvine School of Law – Immigrant Rights Clinic
4 401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92616-5479
5 Telephone: (949) 824-9894 Facsimile: (949) 824-2747
6 Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
7 dpochoda@acluaz.org Joshua D. Bendor (SBA No. 031908)
8 jbendor@acluaz.org ACLU Foundation of Arizona
9 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014
10 Telephone: (602) 650-1854

11 Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado

(SBA No. 027076)

12 rybarra@stanfordalumni.org

Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra

13

Maldonado, PLC

2637 North 16th St., Unit 1

14 Phoenix, AZ 85006

Telephone: (602) 910-4040

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac vice)
jbansal@ndlon.org National Day Laborer Organizing
Network 675 S. Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 380-2214 Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro
hac vice) jvosburgh@ndlon.org National Day Laborer Organizing
Network 2104 Chapel Hill Road Hoover, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 317-1481

17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

18

Puente Arizona, Susan E. Frederick-

19 Gray, Russell Andrew Burnette and Erin

Tamayo, on behalf of themselves and all

20 others similarly situated; Sara Cervantes No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC

Arreola; and Elia Estrada Fernandez,

21

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiffs,

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

22

RELIEF

v.

23

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa

24 County, Arizona, in his official capacity; CLASS ACTION

Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County

25 Attorney, in his official capacity;

Maricopa County, Arizona; and the State

26 of Arizona,

27

Defendants.

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 41

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action challenges two state laws, Arizona House Bill 2779 (“H.B.

3 2779”), passed in 2007, and Arizona House Bill 2745 (“H.B. 2745”), passed in 2008,

4 which sought, in relevant part, to criminally punish individuals who do not have federal

5 authorization to work in the United States for the act of securing employment. Both

6 measures were promulgated as part of a broader platform favored by Arizona nativists to

7 make life so difficult for immigrants coming from Mexico and Latin America that they

8 would “self-deport.”

9

2. Arizona entered uncharted territory as a state when it revised its identity

10 theft laws to achieve this aim. Specifically, H.B. 2779, also called the “Legal Arizona

11 Workers Act,” created a new offense of aggravated identity theft to use the information

12 of “another person, including a real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain

13 employment.” A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3). H.B. 2745 supplemented the Legal Arizona

14 Workers Act by defining the offense of identity theft to include use of another’s

15 information, real or fictitious, “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.” § 13-

16 2008(A).

17

3. The action also challenges the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (the

18 “MCSO”) and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (the “MCAO”) effort, funded by

19 Maricopa County, to use the above-described provisions in A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and

20 13-2009(A)(3) (collectively referred to as the “worker identity provisions”), together

21 with Arizona’s forgery statute, A.R.S. § 13-2002, to carry out a campaign to target

22 undocumented immigrants in the workplace for arrest and prosecution.1

23

4. The effect of these measures has been to turn individuals such as Plaintiff

24 Sara Cervantes Arreola—who worked for years at a grocery store on Phoenix’s west

25

26

1 Plaintiffs use the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “undocumented worker” in this Complaint to refer to individuals who do not have federal authorization to work in the

27

United States. The only exception is that where materials quoted by Plaintiffs use a different term—such as “illegal immigrants,” “illegal aliens,” “aliens” and “illegals”—

28 then Plaintiffs will use that terminology for purposes of faithfully reproducing the quote.

2

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 41

1 side to support her young son—into convicted felons. Ms. Cervantes Arreola was

2 arrested at work in January 2013 for using identifying information of a fictitious person,

3 something she needed to do in order to get the job.

4

5. MCSO’s and MCAO’s enforcement campaign has separated breadwinners

5 from their families, suppressed workers’ rights, eroded the social fabric of the

6 community, and ultimately harmed many U.S. citizens as well as immigrants. Taxpayer

7 funds have been improperly diverted from essential public services to jail and prosecute

8 workers. And organizations such as Plaintiff Puente Arizona have had to respond to the

9 fallout of enforcement operations by providing humanitarian and advocacy assistance to

10 affected families.

11

6. Defendants’ effort to single out employment by undocumented workers

12 intrudes upon an area of exclusive federal control. It interferes and conflicts with federal

13 laws established by Congress and implemented by the executive branch regulating

14 immigration and employment, and thus violate the Supremacy Clause. The worker

15 identity provisions also discriminate on the basis of alienage in violation of the

16 Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

17

7. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to

18 prevent further unconstitutional arrests and prosecutions and an expungement of records

19 for the two Plaintiffs who have been improperly convicted.

20

21

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

8. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the laws and Constitution of

23 the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

24 and 1343. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

25 and 2202.

26

9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All Defendants are sued in

27 their official capacity and their official places of business are located within this District.

28

3

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 4 of 41

1 A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 2 District.

3

4

PARTIES

5 Plaintiffs

6

10. Plaintiff Puente Arizona (“Puente”) is a grassroots membership

7 organization based in Phoenix. Its mission is to promote justice, human dignity, non-

8 violence and interdependence. It aims to develop, educate, and empower immigrant

9 communities, and to enhance the quality of life of immigrants. Puente provides free

10 English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness

11 training, educational programs for children, and other services to the community. The

12 arrests and prosecutions of workers under A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-

13 2009(A)(3) have frustrated Puente’s mission by creating a climate of fear and separating

14 parents, community leaders, and students from those who depend on them. Puente has

15 been forced to cut back on its services and divert scarce resources in order to assist

16 affected workers and their families. In addition, some members of Puente are currently

17 at risk of being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted under the worker

18 identity provisions and forgery statute.

19

11. Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola is a resident of Glendale, Arizona and

20 mother of a 6-year-old son and a 5-month old baby. From 2007 to 2013, Ms. Cervantes

21 worked up to 14 hours a day, five days a week in the produce department at Lam’s

22 Supermarket to provide for her family. On January 17, 2013, she was arrested at work

23 by the MSCO during a workplace raid for using the identity of a fictitious person to

24 obtain employment. On March 18, 2013, she pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, a

25 Class 3 felony, under A.R.S. § 13-2009.

26

12. Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and the

27 mother of three young children. From 2013 to 2014, Ms. Estrada worked at Arby’s in

28 Chandler Arizona to provide for her family. On September 22, 2014, she was arrested by

4

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 5 of 41

1 the Gilbert Police Department and charged with using a false identity to work. On

2 October 28, 2014, she pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking the identity of

3 another with intent to obtain employment under A.R.S. § 13-2009, a Class 3 felony.

4

13. Plaintiff Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is the Lead Minister of the

5 Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Phoenix, Arizona. She works in, resides in,

6 owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa County. Upon information and

7 belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by Plaintiff Frederick-Gray to

8 enforce A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented

9 workers. Plaintiff Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an

10 illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

11

14. Plaintiff Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette is the Senior Minister at

12 Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Chandler, Arizona. He works in, resides

13 in, owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa County. Upon information

14 and belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by Plaintiff Burnette to enforce

15 A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.

16 Plaintiff Burnette is challenging the enforcement of these statutes as an illegal

17 expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

18

15. Plaintiff Reverend Erin Tamayo is a pastor of the Presbyterian Church

19 USA. She works in, resides in, owns property in and pays taxes to Defendant Maricopa

20 County. Upon information and belief, Maricopa County has been using taxes paid by

21 Reverend Tamayo to enforce A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3)

22 against undocumented workers. Reverend Tamayo is challenging the enforcement of

23 these statutes as an illegal expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

24 Defendants

25

16. Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (“Arpaio”) is the elected Sheriff of Maricopa

26 County, Arizona. He is the final policymaker for Maricopa County in the area of law

27 enforcement, and is responsible for setting the policies, practices and customs of the

28

5

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 6 of 41

1 MCSO, including those pertaining to the agency’s enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2002,

2 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3). Defendant Arpaio is sued in his official capacity.

3

17. Defendant Bill Montgomery (“Montgomery”) is the elected County

4 Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Montgomery is the chief official

5 responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of felonies within Maricopa County,

6 including A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), as well as misdemeanors

7 that occur in unincorporated areas. Defendant Montgomery is the final policymaker for

8 Maricopa County on matters of prosecution. He is sued in his official capacity.

9

18. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision formed

10 and designated as such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Maricopa

11 County is liable for the practices and policies of Defendants Arpaio. The County has

12 also acquiesced in and, through local tax revenues, financed the enforcement of A.R.S.

13 §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) by MCSO and MCAO as described in this

14 Complaint.

15

19. Defendant State of Arizona is a state in the United States. It includes the

16 Arizona Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), which is responsible for collecting,

17 storing and disseminating criminal history records and related criminal justice

18 information for the state of Arizona.

19

20

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21

Exclusive Federal Control over Immigration and Employment Verification

22

20. More than 20 years before Arizona sought to regulate the employment of

23 undocumented immigrants through H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, Congress enacted the

24 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), Pub. L. 99-603, “a

25 comprehensive framework for combatting the employment of illegal aliens.” Arizona v.

26 United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2504 (2012) (internal quotation omitted).

27

28

6

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 7 of 41

1

21. IRCA added to an already extensive system of federal laws addressing the

2 entry, expulsion and treatment of immigrants in the Immigration and Nationality Act

3 (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.

4

22. The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive, plenary power

5 over immigration matters, stating that the federal government may “establish a uniform

6 Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4, and “regulate Commerce with

7 foreign Nations,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

8

23. Congress’s comprehensive system of federal laws governing immigration

9 generally leaves no room for supplemental or parallel state laws.

10

24. In passing IRCA, Congress balanced numerous factors in settling on a

11 scheme for the regulation of immigration and employment that imposed a graduated

12 series of civil and criminal sanctions on employers for the knowing employment of

13 undocumented workers. Congress located this new scheme in the immigration statutes.

14 See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a et seq.

15

25. The comprehensive framework created by Congress does not impose

16 criminal sanctions on the employee side for unauthorized work. Proposals to make

17 seeking or engaging in unauthorized work a criminal offense were introduced and

18 debated. However, Congress decided not to adopt them.

19

26. As the Supreme Court recently recognized, “IRCA's framework reflects a

20 considered judgment that making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized

21 work—aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their

22 removable status—would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives.” Arizona,

23 132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.

24

27. Committee reports accompanying IRCA confirmed Congress’s view that

25 undocumented workers should not be treated as severely as the employers that hire

26 them. They recognized that there are “severe economic ‘push factors’ that lead aliens to

27 enter the country illegally” and that “many who enter illegally do so for the best of

28

7

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 8 of 41

1 motives—to seek a better life for themselves and their families.” H.R. Rep. 99-682, part

2 1, at 46, 63; see also S. Rep. No. 99-132, at 3.

3

28. Further, in IRCA, Congress established a detailed procedure by which

4 employers would have to verify prospective employees’ eligibility for employment. 8

5 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). This procedure involves the inspection of certain documents to

6 confirm identity and employment eligibility and completion of a Form I-9, Employment

7 Eligibility Verification Form. Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2.

8

29. Anticipating that some might respond to the new verification system by

9 relying on false documents or making false statements, Congress also endowed federal

10 authorities with certain tools to combat document fraud.

11

30. Section 103 of IRCA amended 18 U.S.C. § 1546 pertaining to “Fraud and

12 misuse of visas, permits, and other documents” to impose a criminal penalty for the use

13 of a false identification document or making of a false attestation for purposes of

14 satisfying the employment verification requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b). Section 103

15 also expanded the prohibition on selling, making or using fraudulent immigration

16 documents to include those documents used “as evidence of authorized . . . employment

17 in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

18

31. In addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1546, Congress specifically designated several

19 existing federal criminal statutes that could be applied to fraud in the employment

20 verification process. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) (listing applicable statutes, consisting of

21 Title 18, Sections 1001 [false statements], 1028 [fraud in connection with identity

22 documents], 1546 and 1621 [perjury]).

23

32. Congress has also created certain civil penalties for document fraud. 8

24 U.S.C. §1324c allows an administrative law judge to impose a fine, after a hearing, of

25 $250-$2,000 on any person or entity who knowingly “forge[s],” “use[s]” or “attempt[s]

26 to use” a document not belonging to the possessor to satisfy the requirements of the

27 INA, including for purposes of obtaining employment. 8 U.S.C. §§1324c(a)(1)-(4),

28 1324c(d).

8

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 9 of 41

1

33. Finally, immigration consequences can attach to document fraud in the

2 employment verification process. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) (making “an

3 alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title []

4 deportable”); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (making those who make false claims to

5 citizenship, including for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, inadmissible and thus ineligible

6 for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident). Conversely, federal

7 authorities may decide to forego sanctions, for example, in cases where a worker is the

8 victim of labor trafficking, other labor violations or could otherwise be helpful to a law

9 enforcement investigation. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(T), 1101(a)(15)(U).

10

34. Congress made a point to circumscribe punishment of fraud in the

11 employment verification process to enforcement of the immigration statutes and the

12 several criminal statutes listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5)

13 (limiting use of the “[Form I-9] attestation form . . . and any information contained in or

14 appended to such forms” to “enforcement of this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546,

15 and 1621 of Title 18”) and 1324a(d)(2)(F) (requiring that any changes to the

16 employment verification system continue to meet the requirement that it “not be used for

17 law enforcement purposes, other than for enforcement of this chapter or sections 1001,

18 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18). The limitation on the use of the attestation form

19 extends to “copies or electronic images of documents . . . used to verify an individual’s

20 identity or employment eligibility.” 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(4).

21

35. Congress also included other language reinforcing the limitations on the

22 use of the employment verification system. It included sections titled “Limited use of

23 system,” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(d)(2)(C), “Restrictions on use of new documents,” 8 U.S.C. §

24 1324a(d)(2)(G), and limited the “Copying of documentation permitted.” 8 U.S.C. §

25 1324a(b)(4).

26

36. In sum, in establishing the new employer sanctions regime in IRCA,

27 Congress “made clear” that the verification process created by the legislation and the

28

9

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 10 of 41

1 “information employees submit to show their work status” was to be used to enforce

2 federal law and not for any other purpose. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 2492 at 2504.

3

37. The federal government’s creation of a pervasive, complex array of civil,

4 criminal and immigration tools to address fraud in the employment verification process

5 further manifests its purpose to preclude any state or local regulation on the same

6 subject. Congress has expressed much more than a “peripheral concern” with the issue,

7 De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 360 (1976); indeed, it has fully occupied the field.

8 Arizona Legislature Adopts Anti-Immigrant Agenda, Amends Identity Theft Laws

9

38. Beginning in 2004, citizen groups in Arizona began to converge around a

10 platform of protecting against the perceived threats posed by the state’s immigrant

11 population.

12

39. These nativist groups, such as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, found

13 a sympathetic ear in then-Arizona House Representative Russell Pearce, among other

14 elected officials.

15

40. In 2004, Pearce authored and championed for the passage of Proposition

16 200, a ballot initiative that would require proof of citizenship in voter registration and

17 limit immigrant families’ access to public benefits. He would go on to author many more

18 measures dealing with immigration over the following six years, first as a representative

19 and then later as a state senator, as part of a comprehensive strategy he called “attrition

20 through enforcement.”

21

41. The goal of “attrition through enforcement” was to make life so difficult

22 for undocumented immigrants and their families that they would “deport themselves.”

23 For example, “attrition through enforcement” was the explicit aim of Pearce’s Senate

24 Bill 1070, an omnibus immigration measure passed in 2010, much of which has since

25 been found to be unconstitutional.

26

42. According to an April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article that

27 Pearce circulated to supporters, the “attrition through enforcement” strategy had

28 different components, such as the enactment of local regulation to discourage

10

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 11 of 41

1 immigrants from settling in a location and the aggressive expansion of the role of state

2 and local law enforcement agencies in the apprehension and detention of immigrants.

3 Another element focused on “ending misuse of Social Security and IRS identification

4 numbers, which illegal immigrants use to secure jobs . . . .” (emphasis added). A copy of

5 the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

6

43. The Arizona Legislature incorporated this latter aspect of the attrition

7 through enforcement strategy in a Pearce-sponsored bill in 2006, House Bill 2577 (“H.B.

8 2577”).

9

44. H.B. 2577, in relevant part, added a provision to the Arizona criminal code

10 that defined the offense of forgery to include the making or alteration of a written

11 instrument “that is used to obtain employment in this state by a person who is not

12 authorized to work in the United States.” The bill specifically made this type of forgery,

13 targeted at undocumented workers, a Class 3 felony, punishable by up to 7 years, A.R.S.

14 §13-702(D), while all other types of forgery would remain Class 4 felonies under the

15 statute.

16

45. To mobilize support for measures like H.B. 2577 in the Legislature, Pearce

17 encouraged and played on the fear and resentment his constituents felt towards

18 immigrants.

19

46. For example, he forwarded a message from two residents of his home

20 district in Mesa advocating for passage of H.B. 2577 that included grievances about “a

21 mass invasion of historic proportions” by “an Hispanic ‘migrant army,’” members of

22 whom were “corrupt[ing] our unifying national language while actively disrespecting

23 our culture, society and country.” A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as Exhibit

24 2 to this Complaint.

25

47. Pearce has himself discussed the “threat” he believes is posed by

26 immigration from Mexico.

27

48. During a February 6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights

28 Committee hearing, in which he was advocating for H.B. 2577, Pearce proclaimed,

11

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 12 of 41

1 incorrectly, that “[Arizona is] number one in the nation in crime, number one!” He

2 explained, “[T]here’s a clear reason for that, and that’s that connection we have to open

3 borders and our failure to secure that border.” Arizona Legislature recording of February

4 6, 2006 House Federal Mandates and Property Rights Committee hearing, at

5 approximately 8:07 of discussion on H.B. 2577.

6

49. During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April 19, 2006,

7 Pearce remarked that “We have an illegal alien crisis and we all recognize that.” Arizona

8 Legislature recording of April 19, 2006 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, at

9 approximately 11:15 of discussion on H.B. 2577. He further discussed “the Mexican

10 government in their 12th edition of ‘How to Break into America and Get Free Stuff.’” Id.

11 at approximately 14:55.

12

50. Pearce specifically alerted supporters to the phenomenon of individuals

13 using false Social Security numbers to work.

14

51. In 2006, he forwarded an article that presented the issue as one about,

15 among other things, “illegals” who “smuggle [themselves] across the border and take a

16 job that lawfully belongs to an American.” A copy of the email from Pearce is attached

17 as Exhibit 3 to this Complaint.

18

52. In a 2007 email to a constituent who had advocated for classification of

19 certain “illegals” as “domestic terrorists,” Pearce discussed the “rapidly growing crime”

20 of “illegal aliens stealing identities to get American jobs.” A copy of the email from

21 Pearce is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.

22

53. Although H.B. 2577 passed the Legislature in 2006, it was vetoed by the

23 Governor.

24

54. Pearce made another attempt the next year. In 2007, he introduced H.B.

25 2779, a bill that would eventually come to be known the Legal Arizona Workers Act.

26

55. Section 1 of H.B. 2779 amended Arizona’s aggravated identity theft

27 statute to punish individuals for using the information of “another person, including a

28 real or fictitious person, with the intent to obtain employment.” A.R.S. §13-2009(A)(3).

12

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 13 of 41

1 Previously, an individual was only punishable under this statute if he or she had bought,

2 manufactured or used the identity of five or more persons, or caused the loss of $3,000

3 or more. H.B. 2779 expanded the grounds of this Class 3 felony to also include the use

4 of false information to work, whether or not the employee used the information of

5 additional persons or caused economic loss to any person or entity.

6

56. By contrast, an individual under 21 years of age who uses false

7 identification to illegally obtain liquor was exempt under the statute and guilty only of a

8 Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months. A.R.S. §§ 13-2009(C); 4-241(L),

9 13-707(A).

10

57. Other aspects of H.B. 2779 required employers to use the basic pilot E-

11 Verify program and imposed sanctions in the form of license suspension on employers

12 found to have knowingly employed undocumented immigrants.2 The full text of the law,

13 as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference.

14

58. Legislators plainly understood that the purpose of H.B. 2779, including the

15 amendments to A.R.S. § 13-2009, was to address the employment of undocumented

16 immigrants. Their contemporary statements and legislative fact sheets for the bill

17 reflected this purpose. They wanted to do so specifically because they were dissatisfied

18 with the federal government’s handling of the issue.

19

59. During a House Government Committee hearing on February 20, 2007 at

20 which he appeared to discuss H.B. 2779, Pearce urged members to not wait “while we

21 watch the destruction of our country” and “the destruction of neighborhoods” by illegal

22 aliens. Arizona Legislature recording of February 20, 2007 House Government

23 Committee hearing, at approximately 2:55:55. He declared that “the feds have not done

24 their job” to quell what he described as a “national epidemic,” and insisted that

25

26 2 The sanctions on employers later were found permissible under an express savings

27

clause in 8 U.S.C. § 1324. See Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) (discussing 8 U.S.C. § 1324(h)(2)). There is no savings clause allowing states to

28 impose penalties on employees.

13

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 14 of 41

1 “[Arizona] need[s] to step up to the plate . . . .” Id. at approximately 02:56:47 and

2 02:57:54.

3

60. At a June 20, 2007 Conference Committee hearing, Pearce responded to a

4 proposal that the Legislature delay passage of the bill to resolve some outstanding

5 concerns by stating “It’s about time we do something. The public’s tired of waiting . . .

6 The [corresponding ballot] initiative is out there because of the failure of both the federal

7 government and the state government to do their job . . . and it’s sad that [Congress is]

8 working on [amnesty] . . . . This law’s needed whether they do something or not … and .

9 . . securing the borders is needed.” Arizona Legislature recording of June 20, 2007

10 Conference Committee hearing at approximately 00:36:38, 00:38:35 and 00:38:55 of.

11

61. Just two days before the Conference Committee hearing, Pearce had

12 forwarded the April 2006 Center for Immigration Studies article identifying

13 undocumented workers’ use of false Social Security numbers as a target for the “attrition

14 through enforcement” immigration strategy to supporters and, upon information and

15 belief, colleagues in the Legislature. A copy of the email from Pearce is attached as

16 Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

17

62. Other legislators also voiced their frustration with the perceived failures on

18 immigration at the federal level and the need to take the issue into their own hands.

19

63. During a Senate Committee of the Whole hearing on May 23, 2007 Senator

20 Chuck Gray explained that he was supporting H.B. 2779 because it “advances the cause

21 of protecting our citizens against something that the federal government won’t do.”

22 Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,

23 at approximately 01:14:46.

24

64. Proponents of the bill were committed to ensuring that workers under

25 would receive a harsh penalty under the measure, because of their undocumented status

26 and because the provision had to do with immigration.

27

65. Though being unlawfully present is a civil offense under the immigration

28 laws, some legislators seemed to operate under the assumption that it is a crime. For

14

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 15 of 41

1 instance, while addressing a proposed amendment to H.B. 2779 during a House

2 Committee of the Whole hearing on March 15, 2007, Representative Bob Robson

3 emphasized, erroneously, that “being in the country illegally is a criminal violation!”

4 Arizona Legislature recording of March 15, 2007 House Committee of the Whole

5 hearing, at approximately 00:32:05.

6

66. When one Representative, Jorge Luis Garcia, proposed that the bill be

7 amended to make the offense a Class 6 rather than a Class 3 felony during the May 23,

8 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing, noting that “there’s a lot of issues out

9 there that certainly are much more serious crimes than working here illegally,” co-

10 sponsor Senator Robert Burns, stated “I guess the issue of the penalty, and whether the

11 penalty fits the crime is certainly a worthwhile debate; however, I think the timing on

12 this particular issue is really critical. At this point, we’re all aware of the turmoil that has

13 come out of the [immigration reform] proposal at the federal level. I believe this would

14 be viewed as a weakening of our opposition to illegal immigration and so for that reason

15 I would oppose the amendment.” Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate

16 Committee of the Whole hearing, at approximately 00:30:30 and 00:33:08.

17

67. During the same hearing on May 23, 2007, Senator Tom O’Halloran stated

18 his intent to make sure workers would be charged with a serious enough crime to

19 guarantee they “stay in jail” while the case is pending and then be immediately deported.

20 Arizona Legislature recording of May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of the Whole hearing,

21 at approximately 00:57:50. He erroneously believed they could “be deported by the State

22 of Arizona.” Id. at 00:57:20.

23

68. The Legislature did not make any findings or conduct any studies

24 regarding the specific financial or other harm to individuals’ whose identities were used

25 as a result of this activity.

26

69. Unlike other situations commonly understood as “identify theft,”

27 undocumented workers do not take money or make purchases in the name of the person

28 whose information they use. In many cases undocumented workers do not know if the

15

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 16 of 41

1 information they are using belongs to a real person, and often, the information does not

2 belong to a real person.

3

70. The legislative proceedings demonstrate that the motivation for Section 1

4 in H.B. 2779 was related to legislators’ views regarding illegal immigration and not to

5 address identifiable criminal harms of identity theft.

6

71. In signing H.B. 2779 into law, Governor Napolitano also identified the

7 measure as reflecting state frustration with the federal handling of immigration. She

8 stated, “Immigration is a federal responsibility, but I signed House Bill 2779 because it is

9 abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive

10 immigration reforms our country needs.” Letter from Janet Napolitano to Jim Weiers

11 (July 2, 2007), available at http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Chapter_Laws/2007/

12 48th_Legislature_1st_Regular_Session/CH_279.pdf.

13

72. Napolitano was quoted in news sources as saying, about the bill, “We’re

14 dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now . . . . The states will take the lead, and

15 Arizona will take the lead among the states.” Matthew Benson, Governor OKs toughest

16 migrant-hire law in U.S., ARIZ. REPUBLIC, July 3, 2007.

17

73. With the adoption of H.B. 2779, Arizona had appeased constituents who

18 had expressed hostility and bias against undocumented workers. Champions of the bill

19 included members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, United for a Sovereign

20 America and Protect Arizona NOW.

21

74. In 2008, backers of H.B. 2779 faced a ballot initiative that they believed

22 would make Arizona’s employer sanctions regime more lenient. In a message opposing

23 the initiative, then-Representative Pearce opened with “#1 LURE IS JOBS AND

24 ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS; VIOLENT CRIME FOLLOWS ILLEGAL ALIEN

25 CROWD.” He continued, “IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS RARELY MAKE A

26 LIVING AS GANGSTERS, THEY ARE WORK[sic] CONSTRUCTION, AUTO

27 REPAIR, FARMING, LANDSCAPING, AND LOS[sic] SKILLED JOBS, DRUGS,

28

16

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 17 of 41

1 HOME INVASIONS, FALSE DOCUMENTS.” A copy of the email is attached as

2 Exhibit 6 to this Complaint.

3

75. Pearce also returned to the Legislature that year with another bill to amend

4 and supplement the Legal Arizona Workers Act, H.B. 2745. Section 1 of H.B. 2745

5 expanded the Class 4 identity theft statute to punish individuals for using the information

6 of another person, real or fictitious, “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.”

7 A.R.S. §13-2008. A Class 4 felony is punishable by up to 3 years. A.R.S. §13-702(D).

8 An individual under 21 years of age who uses false identification to illegally obtain

9 liquor was exempt under the statute. A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(E), 4-241(L), 13-707(A).

10

76. H.B. 2745 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law on May 1,

11 2008. The full text of the law, as enacted, is attached as Exhibit 7 to this Complaint and

12 is incorporated by reference.

13

Arizona’s Worker Identity Provisions Intrude upon Federal Law

14

77. Arizona’s passage of laws to penalize undocumented workers’ use of false

15 or fictitious identities to “obtain or continue employment” directly intrudes upon the

16 federal government’s exclusive authority in the (federally-created) employment

17 verification process.

18

78. The scheme Congress created provides a “full set of standards designed to

19 work as a harmonious whole.” Valle del Sol v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1024-25 (9th

20 Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014) (internal quotation omitted).

21

79. Congress’s consolidation of authority over fraud in the employment

22 verification process at the federal level allows authorities to select among available

23 enforcement tools to carry out (and balance) federal objectives. This flexibility is an

24 important feature of the federal scheme.

25

80. If Arizona’s worker identity provisions are allowed to stand, every state

26 could “create an independent scheme of prosecution and judicial enforcement outside

27 the control of the federal government . . . .” United States v. S. Carolina, 840 F. Supp.

28 2d 898, 926-27 (D.S.C. 2011) (invalidating provision making it a state offense to use a

17

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 18 of 41

1 fraudulent identification document for the purpose of establishing lawful presence in the

2 United States), aff'd, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013). This would “detract[] from the

3 integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2502

4 (internal quotation omitted).

5

81. Even complementary state regulation is impermissible. In this case,

6 Arizona’s sanctions actually conflict with federal law.

7

82. A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) impose different penalties than

8 federal law and, unlike federal law, fail to distinguish between different types of

9 fraudulent conduct in the employment verification process.

10

83. Arizona’s statutes therefore further stand as an obstacle to success of

11 Congress’s chosen “calibration of force” in accomplishing its purposes and objectives.

12 Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 380 (2000).

13

84. In addition to federal immigration law, A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-

14 2009(A)(3) frustrate the goals of federal labor and employment law, which Congress

15 recognized was critical to the success of the employer sanctions regime.

16

85. During congressional deliberations over IRCA, Congress was acutely

17 aware of the importance of vigorous enforcement of labor protections for workers.

18 Congress explicitly authorized funds for the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”)

19 Wage and Hour Division to strengthen enforcement of employment standards laws for

20 undocumented workers in IRCA, recognizing that doing so would “remove the

21 economic incentive for employers to exploit and use such aliens.” IRCA § 111(d).

22

86. Federal labor and employment law protections apply regardless of

23 immigration status.

24

87. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the DOL have

25 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby DHS has agreed to refrain from

26 worksite enforcement in cases where employers may be manipulating enforcement

27 activities to gain leverage in a labor dispute. DHS/DOL Revised MOU Between DHS

28 and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Mar. 31, 2011).

18

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 19 of 41

1

88. In Arizona, however, the threat of a felony arrest under the worker identity

2 provisions gives unscrupulous employers a hammer to hold over the head of workers

3 who would otherwise seek to enforce their labor rights.

4

89. Arizona’s worker identity provisions also contravene federal anti-

5 discrimination law.

6

90. For example, the 1870 Civil Rights Act specifically sought to protect

7 foreign nationals from sub-federal discrimination.

8

91. Codified today at 28 U.S.C. § 1981, Section 16 of the 1870 Civil Rights

9 Act emphasized that “all persons . . . shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties

10 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1981 (emphasis added). Codified today at 18 U.S.C. § 242, Section 17

11 of the Act prohibited any person “under the color of [] law” from subjecting any person

12 within a state to “different punishments, pains or penalties, on account of such person

13 being an alien . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242 (emphasis added).

14

92. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also guarantees that

15 all persons receive equal protection of the laws.

16

93. In recasting Arizona’s identity theft statutes to target undocumented

17 workers, the Legislature acted in a discriminatory fashion.

18

94. The language and history of Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B.

19 2745 demonstrate the Legislature’s intent to punish on the basis of alienage.

20

95. As candidly acknowledged by their author and primary sponsor, the

21 purpose of these measures was to make conditions so unbearable for undocumented

22 workers that they would voluntarily “self-deport.”

23

96. In passing these measures, the Arizona Legislature acted on a desire to

24 harm a politically unpopular group.

25

97. The Legislature played on and gave effect to private fears and prejudice

26 against undocumented immigrants.

27

98. Further, legislators refused to consider any lighter penalty for

28 undocumented workers because such a move would be “viewed as a weakening of our

19

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 20 of 41

1 opposition to illegal immigration.” Perception of Arizona’s position on the federal issue

2 of illegal immigration is not a legitimate state interest that could justify differential

3 treatment on the basis of alienage.

4

99. Arizona’s worker identity provisions violate federal anti-discrimination

5 protections.

6

Maricopa County Defendants’ Campaign to Criminally Punish Undocumented Workers

7

100. Since 2008 or earlier, Defendants Arpaio, Montgomery and Maricopa

8 County (the “Maricopa County Defendants”) have had a policy, practice or custom of

9 enforcing the worker identity provisions and Arizona’s forgery statute against

10 undocumented immigrants.

11

101. The purpose and effect of the Maricopa County Defendants’ policy,

12 practice or custom has been to regulate—independent of federal policies and priorities—

13 the use of false information or documents by undocumented immigrants to circumvent

14 the federal employment verification system.

15

102. For example, in 2008, the MCSO began conducting worksite enforcement

16 operations based on the newly enacted worker identity provisions and Arizona’s forgery

17 statute.

18

103. MCSO conducted these worksite enforcement operations through a

19 specialized unit focused on illegal immigration, called the Human Smuggling Unit

20 (“HSU”).

21

104. The HSU was created in or around 2006. In 2008, after the Legal Arizona

22 Workers Act was passed, MCSO tasked one of three HSU squads with enforcement of

23 illegal immigration laws in the workplace. The squad was originally called the Employer

24 Sanctions Unit. Its name was later changed to the Criminal Employment Squad and then

25 to the Criminal Employment Unit.

26

27

28

20

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 21 of 41

1

105. The work of the Criminal Employment Unit and its predecessor units

2 involved investigating undocumented immigrants who used false information or

3 documents to show federal authorization to work.

4

106. The MCSO’s worksite operations were part of a larger campaign by the

5 Sheriff’s Office to “crack down” on illegal immigration. In a March 15, 2008 news brief

6 from the MCSO announcing the arrest of an employee for identity theft and forgery, the

7 Sheriff stated, “My Office will continue cracking down on illegal immigration[.]

8 Sheriff’s deputies will continue to investigate crimes in the work place related to illegal

9 immigration . . . .”

10

107. In a December 10, 2011 news release announcing a raid on a Chandler

11 restaurant, Sheriff Arpaio stated that “100% of all suspects [of] identity theft to gain

12 employment” in worksite operations to date had been “illegal aliens.” In a September 20,

13 2012 news release, he stated that he viewed “arrests of illegal aliens using fake names

14 and false social security numbers” as “open[ing] up employment opportunities for those

15 who are in this country legally.”

16

108. Sheriff Arpaio had significant personal involvement in the work of the

17 Criminal Employment Unit and its predecessor units. He was briefed on and attended

18 most major operations, as well as some smaller operations.

19

109. The operations were also publicized by the Sheriff’s Office. Arpaio’s head

20 of media relations, Lisa Allen, has stated that for the MCSO, “immigration enforcement”

21 was “an awful lot of, you know, identity theft and so forth.” Allen Dep. 28:17-20, Mar.

22 31, 2014, in United States v. Maricopa County, No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS (D. Ariz.).

23

110. Sheriff Arpaio focused his agency’s illegal immigration program on

24 immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. Anti-Hispanic sentiment had fueled his

25 constituents’ call to channel the agency’s law enforcement resources towards the

26 immigration issue.

27

111. Sheriff Arpaio set up an “illegal immigration hotline” for members of the

28 public to call and provide “tips” about suspected undocumented immigrants who were

21

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 22 of 41

1 working. He also applied for a 287(g) agreement with DHS to cross-certify 160 officers

2 to arrest individuals based on a suspected violation of the federal immigration laws.

3

112. The MCAO, for its part, designated a specialized unit to prosecute cases of

4 employees using false information and documents to work—the Special Crimes Bureau.

5

113. The Special Crimes Bureau worked closely with the MCSO’s Criminal

6 Employment Unit and its predecessor units in a concerted effort to pursue cases against

7 undocumented workers. Members of the two units would meet regularly about MCSO’s

8 worksite operations.

9

114. The Special Crimes Bureau also prosecuted cases of undocumented

10 workers using false information and documents to work referred by other law

11 enforcement agencies.

12

115. The MCAO has a separate unit called the Fraud and Identity Theft

13 Enforcement (“FITE”) Bureau, which was created to prosecute fraud, identity theft and

14 forgery. However, since approximately 2008, MCAO has handled identity theft and

15 forgery cases involving employment through the Special Crimes Bureau rather than the

16 FITE Bureau.

17

116. The Special Crimes Bureau carries out the office’s immigration-related

18 enforcement mission. The MCAO webpage for the Special Crimes Bureau states, in

19 relevant part, that it prosecutes, “[i]llegal immigrant crimes,” which “involve illegal

20 immigrants accused of . . . the use of a stolen Social Security account or other

21 identification in order to get a job in the United States (Employment Identity Theft).”

22 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Special Crimes, available at

23 http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/prosecuting-criminals/organized-crime/special-

24 crimes/.

25

117. According to the longtime former chief of MCAO’s Special Crimes

26 Bureau, Vicki Kratovil, prosecution of employees was part of the focus of the office’s

27 enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act because “every unauthorized worker who

28

22

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 23 of 41

1 is working is committing state criminal offenses.” Kratovil Dep. 51:15-24, Sept. 21,

2 2010, in Mora v. Arpaio, No. CV09-01719-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.).

3

118. When MCSO began prosecuting cases of undocumented immigrants using

4 false information and documents in employment, the office was headed by former

5 County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

6

119. While campaigning for his re-election in 2008, speaking about

7 immigration, Thomas assured voters that he would “work tirelessly to protect our

8 neighborhoods from those who threaten us and violate our laws.” Andrew Thomas,

9 County Attorney stands up for you, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Sept. 26, 2008 (emphasis added).

10 He declared, “I will not treat illegal immigrants as a protected class . . . .” Id.

11

120. In 2010, there was a change in leadership at the MCAO. The interim

12 County Attorney Rick Romley decided to stop sharing state funds that Arizona had

13 allocated to Maricopa County for enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act with

14 the MCSO.

15

121. In response to Romley’s decision, Sheriff Arpaio shifted funds from other

16 parts of his agency’s budget in order to continue conducting worksite operations. He was

17 adamant that there be no change. That is when the MCSO changed the name of the unit to

18 the Criminal Employment Squad to focus explicitly on employees.

19

122. While he was campaigning for office in 2010, now County Attorney Bill

20 Montgomery also signaled a commitment to making Maricopa County inhospitable to

21 undocumented immigrants and vowed to resume working with the MCSO on worksite

22 operations. Upon taking office in 2010, he restored the policy of systematically

23 enforcing the worker identity provisions and forgery statute against undocumented

24 workers.

25

123. In a 2013 interview, Montgomery stated that he would continue to enforce

26 the state identity theft and forgery laws as long as Arizona’s border with Mexico remains

27 insecure. He continued, “The federal government could take away all of my concerns

28 tomorrow, by simply securing the border and doing what they have a responsibility to do.

23

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 24 of 41

1 . . . I would be more than happy to deal with other offenses, and violations of other

2 statutes. But unless and until they do their job, I have to do mine.” Jude Joffe-Block,

3 Police in Arizona crack down on identity theft by immigrants, KPCC, Jan. 7, 2013.

4 Details of Worker Identity and Forgery Investigations

5

124. MCSO’s worksite operations would typically begin with a citizen tip to the

6 Office’s “illegal immigration hotline” that undocumented workers were employed at a

7 particular business. MCSO detectives would conduct an investigation, often obtaining

8 copies of wage reports that an employer files with the Arizona Department of Economic

9 Security (“DES”) containing names and Social Security numbers reported for employees

10 and comparing that information against information found in other databases.

11

125. With the information from the DES reports and database checks, MCSO

12 would then contact the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and ask that agency to

13 identify which employees’ names and Social Security numbers matched information

14 SSA had on file and which did not. With the information it received back from the SSA,

15 MCSO would obtain a search warrant for a business, alleging violations of A.R.S. §§

16 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3).

17

126. MCSO executed search warrants with a show of force and regularly sent

18 hundreds of deputies and posse members, including tactical and K-9 units, to descend

19 upon a business. Workers were usually held incommunicado for hours while deputies

20 sorted through employee records and questioned them about their identity and

21 immigration status.

22

127. Until October 2009, those workers who could not be charged criminally

23 were arrested by MCSO on administrative immigration charges and processed for 24 deportation.3

25

26

27

3 DHS terminated the MCSO’s street-level 287(g) authority on October 16, 2009 after the DOJ found that the agency was engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminatory

28 policing and other civil rights violations.

24

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 25 of 41

1

128. Many workers, however, were arrested on state felony charges of identity

2 theft and forgery and prosecuted.

3

129. Workers were given forgery charges for using false personal identifying

4 information on forms such as the Form I-9, as well as other employment documents.

5 Workers usually use a Social Security number on the Form I-9 to show eligibility for

6 employment and that same number will then be used on other forms for consistency.

7 Forgery charges were also brought against undocumented workers for presenting a false

8 driver’s license or immigration documents during the employment verification process.

9

130. MCSO would regularly arrest undocumented workers under the worker

10 identity provisions and forgery statute together. The Criminal Employment Unit kept a

11 single tally of the number of employees arrested under both charges and the Unit

12 generally did not have forgery cases other than those involving the use of false

13 information or documents in order to obtain employment. The MCAO would regularly

14 prosecute undocumented workers under both provisions as well.

15

131. By charging undocumented workers under these statutes, MCSO and

16 MCAO could ensure that they would be categorically disqualified from pretrial bail

17 pursuant to another harsh Pearce immigration measure, Proposition 100.4

18

132. Though there have been some changes to how MCSO and MCAO have

19 conducted these investigations in the intervening years, such as the source of tips and

20 how many workers are arrested at once, the basic goal of the operations remained the

21 same—to arrest and punish undocumented workers using false information or

22 documents for employment.

23

133. Since 2008, the MCSO has conducted over 80 worksite operations,

24 arresting nearly 790 workers. The vast majority of these were arrested for identity theft

25 and forgery.

26 4 Proposition 100 and its implementing statutes prohibited Arizona courts from setting

27

pretrial bail for persons charged with a Class 1-4 felony who “ha[ve] entered and remained in the United States illegally.” The measure was overturned as unconstitutional

28 on October 15, 2014. Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.) (en banc).

25

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 26 of 41

1

134. In the same period, Maricopa County has brought only five actions against

2 employers. Three of those actions were civil, resulting in business license suspensions of

3 10 days or less, and two were criminal.

4

135. MCSO and MCAO’s method of enforcing A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A)

5 and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers has instilled great fear in the

6 immigrant community.

7

136. Rather than being secondary to employer sanctions, Maricopa County’s

8 worksite enforcement strategy has been to almost exclusively target workers, detain

9 them without possibility of bail and pressure them into signing felony pleas.

10

137. Maricopa County’s practices have given employers unchecked power over

11 workers.

12

138. Sometimes, an employer is aware that a worker is undocumented and has

13 used false or fictitious information to obtain work; an employer may even provide the

14 information or fill it in for workers. Yet employers know it will likely be the worker who

15 is arrested if the discrepancy were to be discovered (or be reported by the employer).

16

139. Volunteers and staff with Puente have observed what seems to be an

17 increase in labor abuse and greater hesitation on the part of workers to report labor

18 violations in Maricopa County.

19 Enforcement Practices Since Filing of This Lawsuit

20

140. As recently as 2014, Sheriff Arpaio publicly announced his continuing

21 commitment to vigorous enforcement of the worker identity provisions and forgery

22 statute against undocumented workers.

23

141. In March 2014, Arpaio stressed to a group of supporters, “Now, they’re

24 clamping down, all these rulings from judges . . . But I still enforce the illegal

25 immigration laws by virtue of going into businesses and locking up the employees with

26 fake ID.” He continued, confirming his understanding of the identity theft laws as an

27 immigration enforcement tool, “[W]e do know that 99.9 percent are here illegally, we

28 know that, but they are not charged with that, they are stealing your ID.” Statement of

26

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 27 of 41

1 Sheriff Joe Arpaio, MN Tea Party Special Event, March 6, 2014, available at

2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFd-Xxrl5qw, at minute 51:04.

3

142. When this lawsuit was filed, Sheriff Arpaio reiterated his commitment to

4 continuing enforcement so long as he was the Sheriff, stating, “[T]here is no sanctuary in

5 Maricopa County.” Megan Cassidy, Lawsuit challenges Arpaio’s workplace raids, ARIZ.

6 REPUBLIC, June 18, 2014.

7

143. After the preliminary injunction hearing in this lawsuit, and before the

8 Court issued a decision, the MCSO announced its apparent intention to disband the

9 Criminal Employment Unit in early 2015. Defendant Arpaio filed a notice with the Court

10 arguing that because the MCSO had “voluntarily enjoined themselves” from enforcing

11 the worker identity provisions, no preliminary injunction was necessary.

12

144. Defendant Arpaio’s notice did not address the MCSO’s use of the forgery

13 statute against undocumented workers and it did not explain whether deputies outside of

14 the Criminal Employment Unit would continue to enforce the worker identity provisions.

15 Defendant Arpaio provided no indication of how long MCSO’s voluntary change in

16 policy would last or whether it might be rescinded in the future.

17

145. In an official written statement issued by the MCSO on December 18,

18 2014, Sheriff Arpaio warned that notwithstanding disbandment of the Criminal

19 Employment Unit, “ID theft and ID fraud remain[] . . . offenses under Arizona Revised

20 Statutes” and that his deputies would “continue to investigate these crimes.”

21

146. After this lawsuit was filed, and before the Court issued a decision on

22 Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the MCAO issued a policy prohibiting

23 prosecutors from further using the Form I-9 as the basis for identity theft and forgery

24 charges. The new policy did not address any other information or documents submitted

25 by workers to circumvent the federal employment verification system.

26

147. Since the Court issued its preliminary injunction barring Defendants from

27 enforcing the worker identity provisions, MCAO has begun withdrawing charges under

28

27

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 28 of 41

1 the worker identity provisions but, in many cases, has continued to prosecute the same

2 underlying conduct under Arizona’s forgery statute.

3

148. Montgomery and the MCAO have indicated an intention to vigorously

4 pursue forgery prosecutions against employees. For example, after a Maricopa County

5 Superior Court, relying on the reasoning of this Court’s preliminary injunction,

6 dismissed forgery and identity theft charges against an employee who was alleged to

7 have submitted a fraudulent Arizona driver’s license for employment, MCAO filed a

8 motion to reconsider arguing that it could constitutionally prosecute employees under

9 the forgery statute for the same conduct so long as it did not rely on the Form I-9. A

10 driver’s license is one of the documents employees show to prove identity in the federal

11 employment verification system.

12

149. MCAO’s policy does not consider a person’s immigration status or his or

13 her status as a victim of labor violations in determining whether or not to decline to

14 prosecute a case.

15

150. The Maricopa County Defendants’ policies, practices and customs deprive

16 federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute (or decide not to criminally

17 prosecute) undocumented workers.

18

151. Upon information and belief, the MCSO is continuing to detain

19 undocumented workers on forgery charges in the Maricopa County Jail. The Maricopa

20 County Defendants continue to expend local tax revenues on investigating, prosecuting

21 and incarcerating undocumented immigrants for using false information or documents to

22 work.

23

Impact on the Immigrant Community and Puente’s Response

24 Plaintiff Puente Arizona

25

152. Puente is a grassroots organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, with

26 hundreds of members, the vast majority of whom are immigrants.

27

153. Migrants, particularly undocumented immigrants and immigrants in mixed

28 status families, face significant stigma and barriers to social and economic integration.

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 29 of 41

1 To fulfill its mission of developing, educating and empowering immigrants to enhance

2 their quality of life, Puente provides a variety of services to the community, including

3 English classes, media trainings, know-your-rights workshops, health and wellness

4 training, and educational programs for children. Puente also offers cultural events,

5 including concerts, film screenings, and an annual Day of the Dead celebration.

6

154. Puente’s members play a central role in setting the organization’s

7 direction, priorities, and activities. Primary decision-making happens at Puente’s weekly

8 meetings, which are open to all members and program participants. In addition, Puente

9 holds membership retreats twice a year. As an organization, Puente represents its

10 members’ collective interests and expresses their collective views.

11

155. The Maricopa County Defendants’ enforcement of Arizona’s worker

12 identity provisions and forgery statute has heavily impacted Puente’s work and

13 frustrated its mission.

14

156. The climate of fear caused by enforcement directly interferes with

15 Puente’s efforts to develop and empower the immigrant community. For example, many

16 workers who participate in Puente’s know-your-rights trainings are reluctant to exercise

17 labor rights for fear of arrest and prosecution under Arizona’s laws.

18

157. The climate of fear created by the enforcement operations has also led

19 immigrants to retreat from public life. Some are even reluctant to leave their homes,

20 including to participate in Puente events and activities.

21

158. The jailing of heads of families—many of whom play important roles in

22 local churches, schools, and community organizations—has also frayed the social fabric

23 and made it difficult for Puente to build a strong community. Families of arrested

24 individuals struggle to get by without their primary breadwinners, which lowers not just

25 their own capacity, but that of other community members to whom they are forced to

26 turn for support. The enforcement operations have affected community members of all

27 ages, from all walks of life.

28

29

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 30 of 41

1

159. For example, in June 2009, then-9-year-old Katherine Figueroa was

2 playing at home when she overheard a TV news anchor announce that the carwash

3 where her parents worked had just been raided. She rushed to the TV and watched in

4 horror as MCSO deputies arrested her mother, Sandra Figueroa, and her father, Carlos

5 Figueroa. The MCSO charged her parents with using false documents to work and

6 incarcerated both of them in the County Jail for the next several months. Without her

7 parents, Katherine was forced to rely on extended family and friends for support.

8

160. More recently, in January 2013, 22-year-old Noemi Romero was arrested

9 by MCSO deputies while working as a cashier at Lam’s Supermarket. Noemi, who grew

10 up in the United States, was working in order to raise money to pay the application fee

11 for the federal government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”)

12 program, which provides certain undocumented young people with work authorization

13 and a reprieve from deportation. Noemi dreamed of one day working in nursing or

14 cosmetology. Her dreams were shattered when MCSO raided Lam’s Supermarket just

15 days after she’d finally managed to save enough money for the application, arrested her

16 and charged her with using a false identity to work. The identity information Noemi

17 used belonged to her mother. Noemi’s felony conviction now disqualifies her from the

18 DACA program. Unable to work or go to college, Noemi lives at home with her parents.

19

161. 63-year-old Marta Espinoza Lopez was arrested by MCSO deputies in

20 February 2013 while she was working as a seamstress at Sportex Apparel. Marta had

21 worked at Sportex for 12 years. She had used her earnings to support herself and to put

22 her children through college in Mexico. She was arrested during an MCSO raid on

23 Sportex for using a fictitious identity to work. She spent four months in County Jail and

24 was subsequently transferred to immigration detention. Upon her release, Marta found

25 she had nothing. When she hadn’t returned home after the raid, her landlord sold all her

26 possessions and rented the apartment to someone else. Marta was forced to rely on

27 friends and community organizations, including Puente, for support.

28

30

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 31 of 41

1

162. One of Puente's core organizers also had an uncle arrested in the MCSO

2 raid of Sportex.

3

163. Seeing the impact that the Maricopa County Defendants’ practices were

4 having on the community with which Puente works, Puente was compelled to respond.

5

164. Puente has provided affected workers and families with childcare,

6 temporary housing, emergency financial assistance, essential information about the

7 criminal process, access to legal services, and critical social and moral support.

8 Additionally, Puente brings family members to visit their loved ones in detention and

9 purchased a van for this purpose. Finally, Puente advocates on behalf of arrested

10 workers in order to try to secure their release and reunite them with their families.

11

165. Because of the resources Puente diverted toward providing this assistance,

12 the organization had to cut back on its free English classes, health and wellness projects,

13 and other core services. Future enforcement actions will again require Puente to divert

14 scarce resources towards assisting affected workers and families.

15

166. Puente’s membership continues to include a significant number of

16 immigrants who are at risk of being investigated, arrested, detained and/or prosecuted by

17 the Maricopa County Defendants under A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-

18 2009(A)(3). Some undocumented Puente members are working to provide for themselves

19 and their families and have used false identity information and documents in order to

20 obtain or continue employment.

21

167. Puente members who have used false identity information and documents

22 in order to obtain or continue employment live in constant fear that they may be arrested

23 and prosecuted under A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) at any time.

24 Many worry every morning when they leave for work that they may not come home that

25 night.

26

168. Puente brings this suit on behalf of itself and on behalf of its members who

27 face a likelihood of future injury due to the Maricopa County Defendants’ practices.

28 Because Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and their claims are not dependent on detailed

31

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 32 of 41

1 facts unique to each individual, individual participation by Puente members is not

2 necessary. Given the climate of fear surrounding enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2001, 13-

3 2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), it is unlikely any would come forward to assert their rights

4 if their individual participation were required.

5

169. Puente has no relevant conflicts of interest with its individual members.

6 Puente’s pursuit of this litigation is pertinent to the organization’s mission of

7 developing, educating and empowering the local immigrant community.

8

9 Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola

10

170. Sara Cervantes is a 27-year-old resident of Glendale, Arizona. She is the

11 mother of two young children, ages six and five months. Until January 2013, she worked

12 in the produce department at Lam’s Supermarket to support herself and her young son

13 and had never been charged with or convicted of any crime.

14

171. On January 17, 2013, MCSO deputies conducted a worksite raid on Lam’s

15 Supermarket while Ms. Cervantes and others were working. Deputies cleared the store

16 of customers and then blocked the store exits, gathered all the workers together, and

17 demanded they produce identification. Deputies ultimately arrested Ms. Cervantes along

18 with approximately eight other Latino employees.

19

172. Ms. Cervantes was charged with using a false identity to work. She was

20 detained at the County Jail and denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to Proposition

21 100.

22

173. On March 18, 2013, after approximately two months in jail, Ms. Cervantes

23 pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking the identity of another with intent to obtain

24 employment under A.R.S. § 13-2009, a Class 3 felony.

25

174. Ms. Cervantes was sentenced on May 6, 2013. As the Superior Court

26 found, “there [was] no victim in this case” because Ms. Cervantes had used information

27 belonging to a fictitious person. The court sentenced her to 109 days in jail, with credit

28 for time served, and twelve months probation.

32

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 33 of 41

1

175. On November 5, 2013, Ms. Cervantes was granted an early termination of

2 probation upon the recommendation of her Probation Officer and released from

3 probation. In total, following her guilty plea on March 18, 2013, Ms. Cervantes spent 59

4 days in jail and six months on probation.

5

176. Ms. Cervantes’ length of incarceration and probation rendered federal

6 habeas relief unavailable to her.

7

177. Upon information and belief, it takes the Arizona Court of Appeals,

8 Division One, approximately one year or longer from the date of filing to decide a

9 criminal appeal. It takes the Arizona Supreme Court approximately four to six months to

10 decide whether or not to hear a case following a Court of Appeals decision, and an

11 additional three to six months to decide the appeal.

12

178. Given the length of the Arizona appellate process and the length of her

13 sentence, it was impossible for Plaintiff Cervantes to exhaust state remedies, much less

14 file and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in custody.

15

179. Ms. Cervantes feels as if her felony conviction has marked her life forever.

16 She believes that people in her community now look at her differently. She worries that

17 the conviction will negatively impact her in the event she is ever stopped or detained by

18 police in the future, and may impact her chances for future immigration relief.

19 Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez

20

180. Plaintiff Elia Estrada is a resident of Mesa, Arizona. She has three young

21 children, ages 12, 4, and 8 months.

22

181. From 2013 to 2014, Ms. Estrada worked at Arby’s located in Chandler,

23 Arizona to support her family. She worked most of the time as a cook.

24

182. On September 22, 2014, Ms. Estrada was arrested by the Gilbert Police

25 Department and charged with using a false identity to work.

26

183. After her arrest, Ms. Estrada was detained at the Maricopa County Jail for

27 63 days, having been denied the opportunity for bail pursuant to Proposition 100.

28

33

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 34 of 41

1

184. Ms. Estrada’s case was prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s

2 Office. On October 28, 2014, Ms. Estrada pled guilty to one count of aggravated taking

3 the identity of another with intent to obtain employment under A.R.S. § 13-2009, a Class

4 3 felony.

5

185. Ms. Estrada had never previously been charged with or convicted of any

6 crime.

7

186. Ms. Estrada was sentenced on November 26, 2014. The court sentenced her

8 to six months of probation.

9

187. In total, following her arrest on September 22, 2014, Ms. Estrada spent

10 approximately two months in jail and six months on probation. After her sentencing, she

11 did not serve any additional time in jail.

12

188. Ms. Estrada’s length of incarceration and probation made federal habeas

13 relief unavailable to her.

14

189. Upon information and belief, it takes the Arizona Court of Appeals,

15 Division One, approximately one year or longer from the date of filing to decide a

16 criminal appeal. It takes the Arizona Supreme Court approximately four to six months to

17 decide whether or not to hear a case following a Court of Appeals decision, and an

18 additional three to six months to decide the appeal.

19

190. Given the length of the Arizona appellate process and the length of her

20 sentence, it was impossible for Plaintiff Estrada to exhaust state remedies, much less file

21 and prevail on a federal habeas petition while she was in custody.

22

191. Ms. Estrada worries that her family and community will think of her as a

23 bad person because of her felony conviction for working to provide for her family. She

24 feels stigma and shame from the conviction. In addition, she believes that the conviction

25 will negatively impact her in the event she ever comes in contact with police in the

26 future, and may impact her chances for future immigration relief.

27 Plaintiff Reverend Susan Frederick-Gray

28

192. Reverend Susan E. Frederick-Gray is a Maricopa County taxpayer.

34

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 35 of 41

1

193. Rev. Frederick-Gray objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce

2 A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers.

3

194. She believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish individuals

4 who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other persons

5 does not serve the public good. Those funds could instead be spent on essential public

6 services.

7

195. Rev. Frederick-Gray is challenging the enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2002,

8 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3) by Maricopa County Defendants as an illegal

9 expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

10 Plaintiff Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette

11

196. Reverend Russell Andrew Burnette is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and a

12 Maricopa County taxpayer.

13

197. Rev. Burnette objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce A.R.S.

14 §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers. Among

15 other taxes, he pays property taxes to the County, as well as excise taxes and sales taxes

16 that help fund the operation of County jails.

17

198. He believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish individuals

18 who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other persons

19 does not serve the public good.

20

199. Rev. Burnette is challenging the Maricopa County Defendants’

21 enforcement of A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) as an illegal

22 expenditure of county taxpayer funds.

23 Plaintiff Reverend Erin Tamayo

24

200. Reverend Erin Tamayo is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and a Maricopa

25 County taxpayer.

26

201. Rev. Tamayo objects to the use of county taxpayer funds to enforce A.R.S.

27 §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) against undocumented workers. Among

28

35

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 36 of 41

1 other taxes, she pays property taxes to the County, as well as excise taxes and sales taxes

2 that help fund the operation of County jails.

3

202. Rev. Tamayo believes that the expenditure of taxpayer funds to punish

4 individuals who are working to provide for their families and not intending to harm other

5 persons does not serve the public good.

6

203. Rev. Tamayo is challenging the Maricopa County Defendants’ enforcement

7 of A.R.S. §§ 13-2002, 13-2008(A), and 13-2009(A)(3) as an illegal expenditure of county

8 taxpayer funds.

9

10

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11

204. Plaintiffs Puente, Frederick-Gray, Tamayo, and Burnette bring this action

12 as a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil

13 Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

14

a. Plaintiff Puente seeks to represent a class of undocumented workers

15

who will be subject to arrest, detention or prosecution by the

16

Maricopa County Defendants under Arizona’s worker identity

17

provisions and forgery statute (the “worker class”).

18

b. Plaintiffs Frederick-Gray, Tamayo, and Burnette seek to represent a

19

class of all persons who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to

20

the use of county tax funds to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute

21

individuals under Arizona’s worker identity provisions and forgery

22

statute (the “taxpayer class”).

23

205. The proposed classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is

24 impracticable.

25

206. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed classes,

26 including (1) whether Arizona’s worker identity provisions are preempted by federal

27 law; (2) whether Arizona’s worker identity provisions deprive members of the worker

28 class of the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth

36

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 37 of 41

1 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) whether the Maricopa County Defendants’

2 policy, practice or custom of using the worker identity provisions and forgery statute to

3 regulate fraud by undocumented immigrants in employment is preempted by federal

4 law.

5

207. The claims and defenses of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the

6 claims and defenses of their respective classes.

7

208. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests

8 of the respective classes.

9

209. Defendants in this case have acted and will continue to act in violation of

10 proposed class members’ rights, which are grounds generally applicable to the classes,

11 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief

12 with respect to the classes as a whole.

13

210. Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and experienced in class action litigation

14 of the type brought here. Plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the University of

15 California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, the ACLU Foundation of

16 Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Law Office of Ray A.

17 Ybarra Maldonado PLC, who collectively have extensive experience with litigation,

18 including class action litigation, regarding the rights of immigrants and constitutional

19 law.

20

21

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

22

211. As a result of the conduct of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs have

23 been denied their constitutional rights.

24

212. In violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Defendants have and will

25 continue to act under color of law.

26

213. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and

27 Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Defendants’ policies, practices,

28 conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable

37

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 38 of 41

1 injury to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their constitutional

2 rights.

3

214. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to address the

4 wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief restraining

5 Defendants from continuing to enforce and engage in the policies, practices and customs

6 described herein.

7

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

8

First Claim For Relief

9

Supremacy Clause; 42 U.S.C. §1983

10

(Against All Defendants)

11

215. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

12 set forth here.

13

216. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution

14 provides: 15 16

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

17

217. The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law preempts state law in

18 any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or

19 which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts

20 or interferes with federal law.

21

218. In enacting Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending

22 A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), Arizona impermissibly intruded on the federal

23 government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration, legislating in a field occupied

24 by the federal government and imposing burdens and penalties on noncitizens not

25 authorized by and contrary to federal law and policy, all in violation of the Supremacy

26 Clause.

27

28

38

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 39 of 41

1

219. Arizona’s worker identity provisions are therefore facially preempted and

2 Defendants may not enforce them.

3

220. The Maricopa County Defendants have a policy, practice and custom of

4 using Arizona’s worker identity and forgery provisions to arrest and prosecute

5 undocumented workers for using false information to show federal authorization to work.

6 Such arrests and prosecutions intrude on the federal government’s exclusive authority to

7 regulate immigration and disrupt a carefully aligned federal scheme of regulation of

8 immigration and employment, thus violating the Supremacy Clause in application.

9

Second Claim For Relief

10

Equal Protection, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. §1983

11

(Against All Defendants)

12

221. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

13 set forth here.

14

222. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o

15 State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

16 laws.”

17

223. Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745, amending A.R.S. §§

18 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), constitute impermissible discrimination against noncitizens

19 on the basis of alienage.

20

224. Defendants cannot establish that Sections 1 of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745

21 had any valid justification, including a rational basis.

22

225. Arizona’s worker identity provisions therefore violate the equal protection

23 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Defendants may not

24 enforce them.

25

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27

226. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:

28

a. Enter a judgment declaring that the portion of A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A)

39

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 40 of 41

1

that addresses actions committed “with the intent to obtain or continue

2

employment” and 13-2009(A)(3) violate the Supremacy Clause and the

3

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

4

States Constitution;

5

b. Enter a judgment declaring that the Maricopa County Defendants’

6

policy, practice or custom of using state statutes, including A.R.S. §§

7

13-2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), to independently regulate

8

fraud committed by undocumented immigrants to circumvent the

9

federal employment verification process violates the Supremacy Clause

10

of the United States Constitution;

11

c. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County

12

Defendants from further enforcing the portion of A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A)

13

that addresses actions committed “with the intent to obtain or continue

14

employment” and 13-2009(A)(3);

15

d. Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the Maricopa County

16

Defendants from further using state statutes, including A.R.S. §§ 13-

17

2002, 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), to criminally punish

18

undocumented workers who submit false information or documents for

19

the purpose of showing federal authorization to work;

20

e. Issue an injunction ordering Defendants to expunge from their records

21

the arrests and convictions of Plaintiffs Cervantes and Estrada under

22

A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3), and to forward a copy of this order to any

23

person or agency that was notified of said arrests or convictions;

24

f. Award attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, plus interest, pursuant to 42

25

U.S.C. § 1988; and

26

g. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

27

28

DATED this 18th day of June, 2015.

40

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 191 Filed 07/07/15 Page 41 of 41

1

2

By /s/ Anne Lai Anne Lai (admitted pro hac vice)

3

Sameer Ashar (admitted pro hac vice) University of California, Irvine School of

4

Law – Immigrant Rights Clinic 401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500

5

Irvine, CA 92616-5479

6

Daniel J. Pochoda Joshua D. Bendor

7

ACLU Foundation of Arizona 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 205

8

Phoenix, AZ 85012

9

Jessica Karp Bansal (admitted pro hac vice) National Day Labor Organizing Network

10

675 S. Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057

11

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (admitted pro hac

12

vice) National Day Laborer Organizing Network

13

2104 Chapel Hill Road Hoover, AL 35216

14

Telephone: (205) 317-1481

15

Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, PLC

16

2637 North 16th St., Unit 1 Phoenix, AZ 85006

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et

13 al.,

14

Defendants.

No. CV14-1356 PHX DGC ORDER

15

On January 20, 2016, the Court held a three-hour hearing with the parties to

16 discuss a number of discovery issues. The Court previously required the parties to file

17 memoranda on these issues (Doc. 347), and reviewed the memoranda before the hearing

18 (Docs. 353, 355, 366, 369). This order will set forth several rulings on issues raised by

19 the parties. Although some rationale will be provided, a review of the transcript of the

20 hearing will provide a more complete understanding of the Court’s decisions.

21 I. Fifth Amendment Issues.

22

Defendants disagree with assertions of the Fifth Amendment made during the

23 depositions of Sara Cervantes Arreola and Elia Estrada Fernandez (the “Expungement

24 Plaintiffs”). Because the Fifth Amendment must be invoked on a question-by-question

25 basis, the Court has directed the parties to prepare a matrix for the Court’s consideration.

26 Each line of the matrix should address a question which was not answered on Fifth

27 Amendment grounds. The matrix will include four columns. The first column should set

28 forth the question asked; the second column should set forth the invocation of the Fifth

1 Amendment; the third column shall contain Defendants’ argument as to why invocation

2 of the Fifth Amendment is improper; and the fourth column shall contain Plaintiffs’

3 argument as to why the Fifth Amendment was properly invoked. The parties shall file

4 the matrix with the Court by January 29, 2016.

5 II. Sensitive Information.

6

A. Plaintiffs ask the Court to preclude Defendants from inquiring into specific

7 sensitive information during the depositions of the Expungement Plaintiffs and Mr.

8 Garcia, the executive director of Puente. Plaintiffs’ requested protective order (Doc. 355)

9 is granted with respect to the following categories: (1) information about other potential

10 unlawful conduct by family members; (2) the names or identifying information of

11 unauthorized immigrants who deponents know have worked or are working without

12 proper documentation, or the names or identifying information of the source of false

13 identification documents, except to the extent already known to Defendants through

14 pleadings, declarations, or discovery materials in this case; and (3) the identities or

15 employers of the Doe declarants.

16

B. Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order (Doc. 355) is denied with respect to

17 the following categories of information and depositions of the Expungement Plaintiffs

18 and Mr. Garcia: (1) the names and immigration status of family members of deponents;

19 (2) the current address, landlord, telephone number, telephone provider, and financial

20 account information of the deponents; (3) with regard to the Expungement Plaintiffs,

21 information about efforts to seek or obtain employment other than employment which

22 was the subject of prior arrests or prosecutions under the challenged statutes; (4) with

23 respect to Puente members, information about efforts to seek or obtain employment, but

24 only with respect to Puente members already known to Defendants through pleadings,

25 declarations, or discovery materials in this case. Defendants may reopen the depositions

26 of the Expungement Plaintiffs on these subjects and ask reasonable follow-up questions.

27

C. Information disclosed pursuant to this order shall be subject to the

28 Protective Order previously entered in this case (Doc. 250), with the following

- 2 -

1 modifications: “Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” may be shared only

2 with the following persons: (a) at Iafrate & Associates, Michelle Iafrate, Kate Nelson,

3 Cari Shehorn, and Jill Lafornara; (b) at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Douglas

4 L. Irish, Thomas P. Liddy, J. Kenneth Mangum, Ann Thompson Uglietta, Sonja

5 Kautzman, Katerina Gagic, Grace Naranjo, and Jackie Garcia; and (c) at the Attorney

6 General’s Office, Brock Heathcotte, Keith Miller, Maureen Riorden, and Susan Peterson.

7 Defendants shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that such information is not

8 shared with any other person or entity, in any way, without order of this Court.

9

D. The Court reaches these conclusions after carefully considering the interests

10 of both parties. The Court finds that the information in section A(1) above is largely

11 irrelevant to this case, and that Plaintiffs have shown that its disclosure could create risk

12 of harm for family members. Defendants agreed at the hearing that the information in

13 section A(2) is not needed in this case. The information in A(3) is protected for reasons

14 explained in the next section of this order.

15

With respect to the information in section B above, the Court finds that disclosure

16 pursuant to the narrowed protective order is warranted. Although it is true that the

17 Expungement Plaintiffs and Mr. Garcia have some legitimate concerns about possible

18 disclosure of information that could lead to criminal prosecution or deportation, the

19 information is relevant to this case and the Court concludes that the concerns are largely

20 addressed by the existence of the protective order as narrowed in this order.

21

The Court finds this case distinguishable from Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d

22 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). Rivera was an employment discrimination case in which the

23 defendants sought to discover information about the immigration status of the plaintiffs,

24 potentially exposing the plaintiffs to criminal prosecution or deportation. The Ninth

25 Circuit expressed concern that allowing such discovery would chill the filing of

26 discrimination cases under Title VII because employers would “inquire into workers’

27 immigration status” and thereby “raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal

28 prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices

- 3 -

1 or files a Title VII action.” Id. at 1065. The Ninth Circuit was reluctant to “effectively

2 grant all future employers the right to discover the immigration status of any of their

3 employees who choose to assert a Title VII national origin claim.” Id at 1065 n5.

4

This case is very different. The Expungement Plaintiffs and Puente brought this

5 lawsuit on the basis of their status as undocumented immigrants or an organization that

6 seeks to aid undocumented immigrants. Undocumented status is a foundational fact. In

7 addition, Plaintiffs affirmatively assert that they have been convicted of violating identity

8 theft laws or that Puente members are currently violating such laws and therefore may be

9 subject to prosecution. Given these affirmative assertions by Plaintiffs, the Court cannot

10 conclude that allowing discovery into the issues set forth in section B above is irrelevant

11 or otherwise inappropriate. And in light of the narrowed and restrictive protective order, 12 the Court concludes that concerns of the Plaintiffs are adequately addressed.1

13 III. Doe Declarants.

14

Under Ninth Circuit law, plaintiffs in a lawsuit may proceed anonymously if a

15 district court finds anonymity appropriate after balancing five factors: (1) the severity of

16 the threatened harm to the plaintiffs, (2) the reasonableness of their fears, (3) their

17 vulnerability to retaliation, (4) prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest.

18 Doe v. Kameha Schools, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). The Doe declarants are

19 members of Puente who have submitted declarations in support of Puente’s standing in

20 this case. Doc. 130-1. The declarations were submitted anonymously on the basis of the

21 Court’s previous finding that anonymity was warranted. Doc. 129 at 3. The Doe

22 declarants seek to preserve their anonymity, while Defendants argue that they should be

23 required to disclose their identities and submit to full depositions regarding the facts and

24 issues in this case.

25

26

1 The Ninth Circuit in Rivera noted that, in some situations, “the existence of post hoc legal remedies for retaliation do not necessarily provide adequate protection when

27

plaintiffs anticipate retaliation that would result in extraordinarily burdensome consequences.” 364 F.2d at 1065 n.5. In this case, however, the Court is satisfied that

28

the narrowed protective order will adequately protect the Expungement Plaintiffs and Puente from burdensome consequences.

- 4 -

1

Applying the Circuit’s five-factor test, the Court concludes that the Doe declarants

2 should remain anonymous. The initial three factors are quite clear: (1) because the Doe

3 declarants are asserting that they are in this country illegally and are using false

4 information to obtain employment, they face criminal conviction and deportation, both of

5 which qualify as serious consequences; (2) the Doe declarants reasonably fear such

6 consequences because they are admitting to criminal conduct; and (3) the facts admitted

7 by the Doe declarants make them vulnerable to prosecution and deportation.

8

The fourth factor concerns the prejudice Defendants will suffer if the identities of

9 the Doe declarants are not revealed. Two steps will minimize Defendants’ prejudice.

10

First, during the hearing on January 20, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to narrow

11 the factual assertions being made by the Doe declarants to four: the Doe declarants are

12 real people, they are members of Puente, they are using false identification to obtain

13 work, and they are doing so because they are undocumented immigrants who have no

14 Social Security numbers. The purpose of this narrowing, as discussed during the hearing,

15 is to limit the issues on which the Doe declarants will present evidence in this case and,

16 correspondingly, limit the evidence to which Defendants must respond.

17

Second, the Court will permit Defendants to conduct depositions of the Doe

18 declarants under the following conditions. The depositions shall occur by telephone, with

19 each Doe declarant present with counsel for Plaintiffs and a court reporter, and counsel

20 for Defendants participating by telephone. Counsel for Plaintiffs will avow, on the

21 record, that the Doe declarant is present with the court reporter and is one of the three

22 individuals identified in the previous declarations submitted to the Court as John Doe I,

23 John Doe II, or Jane Doe I. The court reporter shall place the declarant under oath to tell

24 the truth, without using the Doe declarant’s actual name. Defense counsel may then

25 inquire into the four areas on which the Doe declarant will be providing evidence in this

26 case. Defendants will be permitted to ask questions to confirm that the Doe declarant is a

27 real person, such as his or her age, date of birth, place of birth, and city or town of current

28 residence. Defendants will be permitted to inquire into the Doe declarant’s involvement

- 5 -

1 in Puente and whether he or she has received assistance from Puente. Defendants will be

2 permitted to inquire into the Doe declarant’s use of false identification to obtain work,

3 including the kind of false identification used and the purposes to which it has been put in

4 obtaining work. Defendants will be permitted to inquire into the fact that the Doe

5 declarant is an undocumented immigrant with no Social Security number, including the

6 Doe declarant’s country of citizenship, when the Doe declarant entered the United States,

7 and how long the Doe declarant has been present in the United States. With the subjects

8 on which the Doe declarants will provide evidence having been narrowed, and with

9 Defendants being permitted to conduct the depositions described above, the Court

10 concludes that prejudice to Defendants will be minimized.

11

The fifth factor identified by the Ninth Circuit – the public’s interest in an open

12 and fair adjudication – is not seriously impaired. The Doe declarants are not Plaintiffs.

13 Each Plaintiff in this case is openly identified. In addition, proceedings in this case will

14 be public and the basis for the Court’s ruling will be fully explained.

15

In sum, the Court finds that the potentially severe consequences faced by the Doe

16 declarants and their vulnerability to such consequences outweigh any minimal prejudice

17 suffered by Defendants from the anonymity of these non-parties. The Court also finds

18 that the public interest does not weigh strongly against anonymity. The Court will grant 19 Plaintiff’s request for a protective order on the identities of the Doe declarants.2

20 IV. Litigation Schedule.

21

The Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. 162) is modified as follows:

22

23

2 When the Court weighed the protections afforded by the narrowed protective order against the relevancy of the evidence to be obtained in section II.B above, it

24

declined to grant Plaintiffs’ requested protection due to the relevancy of the information sought, the fact that the Expungement Plaintiffs and Puente have affirmatively placed

25

their immigration status and use of false documents at issue in this case, and the fact that Plaintiffs have already addressed many of the same issues in the allegations of their

26

complaint and other materials filed in this case. The Doe declarants are different. They are not Plaintiffs. They provided information only to support the standing of Puente.

27

And the potential adverse consequences for them are severe. Thus, although the narrowed protective order provides the same kind of protection for them as it does for the

28

Expungement Plaintiffs, the Court views them as differently situated given their more limited role in this case and the narrowed categories of information they will provide.

- 6 -

1

A. The fact discovery deadline is extended to February 19, 2016. Defendants

2

shall produce all emails currently under review by February 12, 2016.

3

B. The deadline for Plaintiffs’ full and complete expert disclosures is extended

4

to March 4, 2016. Defendants’ full and complete expert disclosures are

5

due on March 25, 2016. Rebuttal disclosures are due on April 15, 2016.

6

Expert depositions shall be completed by May 6, 2016.

7

All other terms of the Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. 162) remain in

8 effect, including the dispositive motions deadline of May 20, 2016.

9

IT IS ORDERED:

10

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order (Doc. 355) is granted in part and

11

denied in part as set forth above.

12

2. The motions to seal filed by the parties at Docs. 354, 356, 367, and 368 are

13

granted. The parties shall, within seven days of this order, file redacted

14

copies of their memoranda in the public docket. These memoranda shall be

15

filed with a notice of filing which makes clear that they have already been

16

addressed in this order.

17

3. The motion for extension of time (Doc. 364) is denied as moot in light of

18

the adjustments to the litigation schedule set forth above.

19

Dated this 21st day of January, 2016.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et

13 al.,

14

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC ORDER

15

The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on January 20, 2016.

16 Doc. 370. Defendants raised concerns regarding invocations of the Fifth Amendment

17 during the depositions of the two Expungement Plaintiffs, Sara Edith Cervantes Arreola

18 and Elia Estrada Fernandez. Because assertions of the Fifth Amendment must be

19 addressed on a question-by-question basis, the Court directed the parties to submit a

20 matrix which set forth each question, each Fifth Amendment refusal to answer,

21 Defendants’ arguments as to why the invocation was improper, and Plaintiffs’ arguments

22 as to why the Fifth Amendment was properly invoked. Doc. 373.

23

The parties submitted the matrix on January 29, 2016. Doc. 398. The Court has

24 conducted a question-by-question review, and has also read the questions and answers in

25 the context of the deposition transcripts which the Court later required the parties to file.

26 Docs. 424; 424-1. The Court concludes that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

27 incrimination was properly invoked by the Expungement Plaintiffs with respect to

28 virtually all of the questions.

1

A. Legal Standard.

2

The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any

3 criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Fifth

4 Amendment’s protections apply to civil proceedings. Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258,

5 1263 (9th Cir. 2000). In the civil context “the invocation of the privilege is limited to

6 those circumstances in which the person invoking the privilege reasonably believes that

7 his disclosures could be used in a criminal prosecution, or could lead to other evidence

8 that could be used in that manner.” Id. “Therefore, the privilege against self-

9 incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution

10 and also covers those circumstances where the disclosures would not be directly

11 incriminating, but could provide an indirect link to incriminating evidence.” Id.

12 (emphasis in original; quotation marks and citation omitted).

13

B. Analysis.

14

Virtually all of the questions at issue concern the Expungement Plaintiffs’ use of

15 falsified documents to obtain employment. There were many questions about social

16 security numbers, including whether certain social security numbers belonged to the

17 Expungement Plaintiffs (see Docs. 424 at 56; 424-1 at 18-19, 36-37, 102-03), whether

18 they had used these social security numbers to obtain employment (see Docs. 424 at 43-

19 44, 49, 53; 424-1 at 16-19, 36-37, 96-98, 103-04, 106-08), and how they had initially

20 obtained these social security numbers (see Docs. 424 at 36; 424-1 at 102-03). There

21 were also a number of questions about tax documents, including whether the

22 Expungement Plaintiffs had signed certain forms, such as IRS Form W-4 (see Doc. 424 at

23 37-38, 41-43) and Arizona Form A-4 (see id. at 44), whether they had filed tax returns

24 (see Docs. 424 at 57; 424-1 at 27), and whether information on certain tax documents

25 was accurate (see Doc. 424 at 44). Ms. Cervantes Arreola was asked whether an

26 immigration document, a Permanent Resident Card, was hers. See id. at 53-54. Ms.

27 Estrada Fernandez was asked about using a false name on her employment paperwork.

28 See Doc. 424-1 at 32-33.

- 2 -

1

Defendants argue that the Fifth Amendment was not properly invoked in response

2 to these questions because the Expungement Plaintiffs admit they were previously

3 convicted under Arizona identity theft statutes for using false identifications to obtain

4 employment, the convictions were based on the Expungement Plaintiffs’ guilty pleas, the

5 prosecutions in which the Expungement Plaintiffs pled guilty were based on the very

6 documents presented to them in their depositions, three years have now passed without

7 any evidence of a federal investigation or federal prosecution based on the same

8 documents and information, and the Expungement Plaintiffs therefore have not shown

9 any substantial or real threat of prosecution. For several reasons, the Court is not

10 persuaded by these arguments.

11

First, although it is true that the Expungement Plaintiffs have admitted that they

12 were convicted of violating Arizona identity theft laws, they are not basing their current

13 Fifth Amendment assertions on those laws. Instead, they base their invocations of the

14 Fifth Amendment on federal statutes prohibiting the making or use of false statements on

15 tax documents (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)), fraud or misuse of immigration or other documents

16 (18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), (b)), social security fraud (18 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(c)), the making of

17 false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)), perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), and tax evasion (26

18 U.S.C. § 7201)). The fact that the Expungement Plaintiffs were previously convicted of

19 violating Arizona identity theft laws does not prohibit their prosecution under these

20 federal statutes.

21

Second, Defendants assert that prosecution of the Expungement Plaintiffs under

22 the federal statutes is highly unlikely given that three years have passed since they

23 entered guilty pleas in the state case. Defendants also note that the Expungement

24 Plaintiffs identify no instances where similar prosecutions have occurred. All of this may

25 be true, but Defendants have not shown that prosecutions based on the above-cited

26 federal statutes would be barred by the statute of limitations, double jeopardy, or some

27 form of immunity. Thus, there appears to be no legal bar to the prosecution of the

28 Expungement Plaintiffs for violating these laws.

- 3 -

1

Third, Defendants note that the various documents presented during the

2 depositions were the same documents at issue in the Expungement Plaintiffs’ violation of

3 Arizona identity theft laws. But Defendants have not shown where the Expungement

4 Plaintiffs admitted the facts asked about in their depositions. The parties have provided

5 the Court with the transcript of Ms. Cervantes Arreola’s guilty plea in state court, and the

6 plea colloquy contains nothing more than a simple admission of guilt. See Doc. 398-1 at

7 10 (admitting that “on or about July 8, 2010 and within Maricopa County, Ms. Cervantes

8 possessed or used personal identifying information of another person, including a

9 fictitious person, with the intent to obtain employment”). It did not address any of the

10 documents presented during Ms. Cervantes Arreola’s deposition, and did not include her

11 admission to any of the facts about which she was asked in the deposition. Thus, even

12 though the documents may have been at issue in the state court prosecutions, Defendants

13 cannot show that the Expungement Plaintiffs previously made admissions with respect to

14 those specific documents. Answers to the questions posited by the Defendants would

15 therefore be new admissions.

16

Fourth, the Court is not persuaded that it can overrule the Expungement Plaintiffs’

17 Fifth Amendment assertions merely because prosecution under the relevant federal

18 statutes appears unlikely. It is true that the law on this subject is somewhat ambiguous,

19 providing helpful quotations for both sides. The Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth

20 Amendment applies only when a person is faced with “substantial and ‘real,’ and not

21 merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.” Marchetti v. United States, 390

22 U.S. 39, 53 (1968) (citations omitted). It is also true, however, that courts have

23 emphasized, as quoted above, that the “privilege against self-incrimination does not

24 depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution.” Glanzer, 232 F.3d

25 at 1263 (citing United Liquor Co. v. Gard (In Re Seper), 705 F.2d 1499, 1501 (9th Cir.

26 1983)).

27

The Court finds helpful guidance in the Supreme Court’s seminal decision of

28 Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951). The high court made clear that the

- 4 -

1 privilege against self-incrimination “not only extends to answers that would in

2 themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces

3 those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the

4 claimant for a federal crime.” Id. at 486 (citation omitted). The court clarified that “this

5 protection must be confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to

6 apprehend danger from a direct answer.” Id. (citation omitted). The court also stated that

7 “[t]o sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question,

8 in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an

9 explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious

10 disclosure could result.” Id. at 486-87.

11

The Court has reviewed each of the federal statutes cited by the Expungement

12 Plaintiffs and concludes that the questions asked by Defendants would assist a prosecutor

13 in proving some element of the crimes set forth in those statutes. They would, as

14 Hoffman notes, “furnish a link in the chain of evidence” needed to prosecute the

15 Expungement Plaintiffs for a federal crime. And when the Court considers the questions

16 in the setting in which they were asked, as Hoffman directs, the Court concludes that the

17 Expungement Plaintiffs have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from answering the

18 questions. The Expungement Plaintiffs admit they are undocumented immigrants. They

19 have previously admitted to violating state identity theft statutes. Their responses to

20 questions posed by Defendants could provide evidence upon which a federal prosecutor

21 might rely in prosecuting them for various federal crimes. Defendants have identified no

22 legal impediment to such a prosecution. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that

23 the Expungement Plaintiffs have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from the

24 questions posed by Defendants.

25

True, three years have passed since the Expungement Plaintiffs admitted to state

26 identity theft. Also true, the Expungement Plaintiffs have not cited examples of similar

27 prosecutions. But the Court can find no case holding that the Fifth Amendment was

28 improperly invoked merely because the person asserting the privilege was unable to

- 5 -

1 prove an imminent threat of prosecution. Clearly, the possibility of prosecution exists

2 here, and answers to the questions could provide evidence for such a prosecution. This is

3 sufficient to sustain the Expungement Plaintiffs’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment. See

4 Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263; see also United States v. Jones, 703 F.2d 473, 478 (10th Cir.

5 1983) (“Once the court determines that the answers requested would tend to incriminate

6 the witness, it should not attempt to speculate whether the witness will in fact be

7 prosecuted.”) (collecting cases); United States v. Edgerton, 734 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.

8 1984) (same).

9

C. Conclusion.

10

The Court concludes that the Fifth Amendment was properly invoked with respect

11 to questions 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 14-17 in the Cervantes Arreola deposition. These numbers

12 correspond to numbers in the parties’ matrix. See Doc. 398. The Court finds that

13 questions 4, 10, 12-13, and 18 were ultimately answered by Ms. Cervantes Arreola and

14 therefore present no Fifth Amendment issue. The Fifth Amendment was also properly

15 invoked in response to questions 2-9 and 11-21 in the Estrada Fernandez deposition.

16 Questions 1 and 10 were ultimately answered by Ms. Estrada Fernandez and therefore do

17 not present a Fifth Amendment issue.

18

Because each of the questions either invoked a proper Fifth Amendment objection

19 or was ultimately answered, the Court concludes that no basis exists for Defendants to

20 conduct further depositions of the Expungement Plaintiffs on the matters addressed in

21 this order.

22

Dated this 19th day of February, 2016.

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity, et

13 al.,

14

Defendants.

No. CV14-1356 PHX DGC ORDER

15

On January 22, 2016, the Court entered an order addressing several discovery

16 issues. Doc. 373. Plaintiffs seek clarification and partial reconsideration of the order.

17 Doc. 409. Defendants have filed a response as ordered by the Court. Docs. 414, 429.

18 The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

19

A. Cervantes Arreola Deposition.

20

Plaintiffs argue that Expungement Plaintiff Cervantes Arreola should not be

21 deposed again because she answered all questions in her deposition other than those

22 where she asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege and questions concerning family

23 members and efforts to obtain employment (discussed below). Doc. 409. Defendants

24 respond that Ms. Cervantes Arreola was slow in answering several questions and

25 unreasonably delayed Defendants’ ability to complete the deposition. Doc. 429 at 3-5.

26 The Court directed Defendants to provide specific examples. Doc. 414 at 2.

27

The examples provided by Defendants do not support their position. See Doc. 429

28 at 4-5. Defendants assert that Ms. Cervantes refused to provide her address by invoking

1 the Fifth Amendment, and only later provided it. The transcript shows, however, that she

2 provided it one question later. Doc. 424 at 46-47. Defendants contend that Ms.

3 Cervantes Arreola refused to state whether she was working despite her lawyer’s

4 withdrawal of a Fifth Amendment objection, but Defendants did not re-ask the question

5 when the objection was withdrawn. Id. at 81-82. Defendants assert that Ms. Cervantes

6 Arreola said she did not want to answer a question about how she signed her name

7 despite her lawyer’s withdrawal of a Fifth Amendment objection, but she did answer the

8 question immediately after a discussion with her counsel. Id. at 46, line 20. Defendants

9 assert that Ms. Cervantes Arreola was too tired to answer a question, but the question was

10 of marginal relevance (“Do you believe that your involvement in this case will change the

11 laws?”) (id. at 112), defense counsel inquired at some length into why Ms. Cervantes

12 Arreola was tired (id. at 112-14), the parties agreed that she could rest (id. at 114), she

13 did rest and then said she was feeling better (id.), and yet defense counsel did not re-ask 14 the question (id.).1

15

B. Relevancy of Family Member Information.

16

The Court’s previous order held that Defendants could inquire into the names and

17 immigration status of family members of the Expungement Plaintiffs. Doc. 373 at 2.

18 Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider this decision, arguing that information about the

19 immigration status of family members is not relevant to any issue in this case and that

20 requiring the Expungement Plaintiffs to disclose it would have a substantial chilling

21 effect on their involvement in this case. Doc. 409 at 6-7.

22

The Court specifically directed Defendants to address the relevancy of this

23 information in their response to Plaintiffs’ motion, but they did not. Defendants argue

24 that the Court previously decided this issue and should not address it again, and that the

25 protective order adequately protects Plaintiffs against possible disclosure of this

26 information, but they say nothing about relevancy. See Doc. 429 at 5-10.

27

28

1 Defendants cite other examples in a footnote (Doc. 429 at 5 n. 2), but the Court finds them no more persuasive than those discussed above.

- 2 -

1

Upon reconsideration, the Court cannot see the relevancy of the immigration status

2 of family members of the Expungement Plaintiffs. The Expungement Plaintiffs do allege

3 that they were forced to work to support their families (Doc. 185, ¶¶ 11-12), and

4 Defendants may ask them which family members they supported as alleged in paragraphs

5 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint. But Defendants should not inquire further

6 about family members and should not ask about their immigration status.

7

C. Continuing Employment.

8

The Court’s previous order held that Defendants could inquire into efforts by the

9 Expungement Plaintiffs to seek or obtain employment other than the employment which

10 was the subject of their previous arrests and prosecutions. Doc. 373 at 2. Plaintiffs ask

11 the Court to reconsider this decision, arguing that this information is irrelevant to the

12 expungement analysis, which focuses only on the constitutionality of the challenged

13 conviction. Doc. 409 at 5-7. Defendants counter that this information is relevant because

14 “equity is the sole basis for a court to order expungement[,] and the balancing of equities

15 must always be considered before granting any [equitable] relief.” Doc. 429 at 9.

16

Defendants are correct that this Court’s authority to grant expungement is rooted

17 in equity, but it does not follow that the Court may engage in a freewheeling balancing

18 analysis when applying this relief. Because “the Constitution is the ultimate expression

19 of the public interest,” equitable balancing is inappropriate where a party’s constitutional

20 rights are at stake. Llewelyn v. Oakland Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 402 F. Supp. 1379,

21 1393 (E.D. Mich. 1975). Stated differently, “enforcement of an unconstitutional law is

22 always contrary to the public interest.” Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir.

23 2013).

24

This circuit and other courts have therefore held that a conviction under an

25 unconstitutional statute is properly expunged. See, e.g., Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 134

26 n.1 (9th Cir. 1978); Kowall v. United States, 53 F.R.D. 211, 216 (W.D. Mich. 1971);

27 United States v. Rothstein, 187 F. 268, 270 (7th Cir. 1911). Defendants do not cite any

28 case holding that a district court may withhold expungement where the plaintiff’s

- 3 -

1 conviction rests on an unconstitutional statute.2

2

Even if the Court were to conclude otherwise, Defendants have not shown that

3 information about the Expungement Plaintiffs’ other employment activities would be

4 relevant to the balancing of equities. Although Defendants assert that it would be

5 inequitable to “reward” an individual who continues to engage in misconduct (Doc. 429

6 at 14), a plaintiff’s unrelated misconduct is not a valid basis for denying him relief from

7 an unconstitutional statute. Cf. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 393 (1948) (plaintiff’s

8 “previous misconduct, not having any relation to the constitutionality of the challenged

9 statutes, did not call for application of the clean hands maxim” in preliminary injunction

10 suit). If equitable balancing were appropriate at all, it would focus on the public interest

11 and the relative hardship to the parties. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7

12 (2008). Defendants have not shown that the information they seek is relevant to these

13 questions. Therefore, the Court will grant reconsideration and preclude Defendants from

14 inquiring into the Expungement Plaintiffs’ other employment activities.

15

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 409) is

16 granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may ask which family members were

17 supported as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, but

18 may not inquire into the immigration status of the Expungement Plaintiffs’ family

19 members or other efforts of the Expungement Plaintiffs to obtain work.

20

Dated this 24th day of February, 2016.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Rogers v. Slaughter, 469 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1972), is not to the contrary, as there was no claim in Rogers that the underlying statute was unconstitutional.

- 4 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

In October 2015, Plaintiffs served subpoenas duces tecum on the Arizona

16 Legislature and former State Senator Russell Pearce, seeking documents and

17 communications related to the identity theft statutes at issue in this case. Each recipient

18 produced some of the requested documents, but withheld others on legislative privilege

19 grounds. Pearce also withheld one document on First Amendment grounds. Plaintiffs

20 have moved to compel production of some of these documents. Doc. 442. Pearce and

21 the State filed separate responses in opposition, Docs. 466, 467, and Plaintiffs replied,

22 Doc. 472. Oral argument has not been requested. For the reasons set forth below, the

23 Court will deny the motion to compel.

24 I. Background.

25

This case concerns two Arizona statutes, H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745, which

26 criminalize the use of another person’s personal identification information for the

27 purpose of obtaining employment. Plaintiffs claim that these statutes are preempted by

28 the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986), and

1 that they violate the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against non-citizens. The

2 parties have recently completed discovery.

3

On October 5, 2015, Plaintiffs served a subpoena duces tecum on Pearce, a co-

4 sponsor of the statutes who is not a party to this case. The subpoena sought documents

5 and communications in Pearce’s possession related to the statutes or predecessor

6 legislation, as well as documents and communications created between 2003 and 2008

7 that discuss certain relevant issues (e.g., the actual or perceived consequences of

8 employment of undocumented immigrants in Arizona), or that contain relevant keywords 9 (e.g., “E-verify”). Doc. 442-2 at 20-28.1 A corrected version of the subpoena was served

10 on October 8. Id. at 30-39. The same day, Plaintiffs served subpoenas seeking similar

11 information on the Chief Clerk of the Arizona House of Representatives (id. at 40-49)

12 and the Secretary of the Arizona State Senate (id. at 51-60).

13

Both Pearce and the State of Arizona produced some responsive documents. On

14 February 12, 2016, Pearce informed Plaintiffs through his amended privilege log that he

15 would be withholding 42 documents on legislative privilege or First Amendment

16 grounds. Id. at 190-94. The same day, the State of Arizona informed Plaintiffs, through

17 its second amended privilege log, that it would be withholding 67 documents on

18 legislative privilege grounds. Id. at 196-203. On February 18, Plaintiffs wrote a letter

19 jointly addressed to Pearce and the State, accepting most of their assertions of privilege,

20 but contesting the assertions with respect to ten documents on Pearce’s log and 12 on the

21 State’s log. Id. at 208-12. The contested documents are listed in Plaintiffs’ motion.

22 Doc. 442 at 10-12 (listing contested documents on Pearce’s amended privilege log)

23 (hereinafter “Pearce Log”), 12-13 (listing contested documents on State’s second

24 amended privilege log) (hereinafter “State Log”). On February 19, the Court granted

25 Plaintiffs leave to file the motion to compel. Doc. 438 at 2.

26 / / /

27

28

1 Citations are to page numbers attached to the top of each page by the Court’s

CM/ECF system, not to the original page number at the bottom of each page.

- 2 -

1 II. Legal Standard.

2

Where the recipient of a subpoena duces tecum refuses to produce requested

3 documents, the proponent of the subpoena may move for an order compelling production.

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Such an order may issue against a non-party. Fed. R. Civ.

5 P. 34(c). To obtain such an order, the proponent must first show that, but for the

6 assertion of privilege, the requested material would be discoverable. See Miller v. York

7 Risk Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-CV-1419 JWS, 2015 WL 3490031, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 3,

8 2015). In other words, the proponent must show that the requested material is “relevant

9 to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 26(b)(1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (1970 Advisory Committee Note) (“[T]he scope of

11 discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other

12 discovery rules.”). If the proponent makes this showing, the burden shifts to the recipient

13 to establish that the requested discovery should be denied. “The party asserting an

14 evidentiary privilege has the burden to demonstrate that the privilege applies to the

15 information in question.” Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988);

16 see also Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). Whether

17 material is privileged is generally determined as a matter of federal common law, with

18 exceptions not applicable here. Fed. R. Evid. 501.

19 III. Analysis.

20

Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of 22 documents in total. Neither Pearce

21 nor the State argues that this request is disproportionate to the needs of the case. Instead,

22 they argue that the requested material is not relevant and is protected by the legislative

23 privilege or the First Amendment.

24

A. Relevance.

25

Plaintiffs argue that the contested documents are relevant to their preemption and

26 equal protection claims because they shed light on why the Arizona Legislature enacted

27 H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745. A state law that has a discriminatory purpose violates the

28 Equal Protection Clause. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429

- 3 -

1 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977). Determining whether a statute embodies such a purpose

2 requires “a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may

3 be available.” Id. at 266. Evidence that the legislature has undertaken “a series of

4 official actions . . . for invidious purposes” may be relevant to this inquiry. Id. at 267.

5 “[C]ontemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its

6 meetings, or reports” may also be relevant. Id. at 268.

7

Similarly, a state law that has the purpose and effect of regulating a preempted

8 subject matter violates the Supremacy Clause. See Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct.

9 1591, 1599 (2015) (courts should consider “the target at which the state law aims in

10 determining whether that law is pre-empted”) (emphasis omitted); N.Y. State Conf. of

11 Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 658 (1995)

12 (considering the purpose and effect of challenged state law). In determining whether a

13 state law is addressed to a preempted subject matter, courts consider “any specific

14 expressions of legislative intent in the statute itself as well as the legislative history.”

15 Cal. Tow Truck Ass’n v. City & Cty. of S.F., 693 F.3d 847, 859 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation 16 omitted).2

17

The contested documents may shed light on whether the Arizona Legislature acted

18 with a constitutionally impermissible purpose in adopting H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745. The

19 documents consist of emails between Pearce and various third party attorneys, lobbyists,

20 and constituents regarding anti-illegal immigration legislation Pearce was sponsoring.

21 Some of the emails relate directly to the legislation at issue in this case. Pearce Log, Nos.

22 27, 33, and 42; State Log, Nos. 16, 19, 20. Other emails discuss an early version of the

23 bill that became H.B. 2745 (State Log 9); a bill that would have made it a crime for an

24

25

2 This analysis is unchanged by the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in this case.

26

The appellate court held that the Arizona Legislature’s purpose in enacting the H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 should not be “dispositive” of the preemption inquiry. Puente Arizona v.

27

Arpaio, --- F.3d --- (9th Cir., May 2, 2016) (slip op. at 16, n.8). But the court recognized that the legislature’s purpose is “relevant” to the preemption inquiry, and indicated that

28

Plaintiffs should be allowed to “produce evidence of the Arizona legislature’s intent to regulate immigration when asking the district court to enjoin certain immigration-related

applications of the identity theft laws.” Id., slip op. at 17, n.9.

- 4 -

1 undocumented immigrant to enter or remain in Arizona (State Log Nos. 60, 62); a ballot

2 initiative that would have prohibited undocumented adults from receiving certain state

3 benefits (State Log Nos. 3, 4, 5); unnamed legislation that would prohibit undocumented

4 immigrants from receiving workers compensation, occupational licenses, and social

5 security benefits (Pearce Log Nos. 3, 4, 21; State Log. No. 39); unnamed legislation to

6 promote enforcement of immigration laws (Pearce Log Nos. 16, 29); unnamed legislation

7 “concerning deduction of business expenses and illegal aliens” (Pearce Log. No. 2);

8 unnamed legislation “concerning illegal aliens and commercial transactions” (Pearce

9 Log. No. 6); and unnamed legislation “to stop anchor babies” (State Log No. 41).

10 Several of these bills were included in Pearce’s “Comprehensive Immigration

11 Enforcement Bill,” a 2006 omnibus bill designed to “mak[e] Arizona ‘illegal alien

12 unfriendly.’” Doc. 472-2 at 11-12. The Court concludes that these emails may be

13 relevant to Plaintiffs’ equal protection and preemption claims, insofar as they provide

14 historical context for H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 and bear on whether Pearce and the

15 Legislature undertook “a series of official actions . . . for invidious purposes” around the

16 time these statutes were adopted. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267.

17

The State concedes that the three emails on its privilege log that relate to H.B.

18 2279 and H.B. 2745 are relevant. Doc. 466 at 11. But it argues that the remaining emails

19 are not relevant, either because they relate to bills considered during a prior legislative

20 session or because they relate to legislation that did not include a criminal identity theft

21 provision. Id. at 10-11.

22

Judge Bolton rejected similar arguments in Valle Del Sol v. Whiting, No. CV-10-

23 01061-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz.). In her December 11, 2013 order, Judge Bolton allowed

24 plaintiffs to conduct discovery into bills considered by the Arizona Legislature up to five

25 years before the enactment of S.B. 1070, the statute challenged in that case. See

26 Doc. 927 in CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB. She explained:

27

S.B. 1070 was one of a series of bills that certain Arizona state legislators

sought to enact to address immigration in Arizona. It is reasonable to

28

conclude that the intentions behind those bills were similar, if not identical,

to the intentions behind S.B. 1070. Stated differently, they are part of the

- 5 -

1

‘historical background’ of the enactment of S.B. 1070 and are therefore

relevant to establishing whether S.B. 1070 violates the Equal Protection

2

Clause.

3 Id. at 7-8 (internal citations omitted).
4 The Court reaches the same conclusion here. Like S.B. 1070, H.B. 2779 and H.B.
5 2745 were enacted during a period when Pearce and other Arizona state legislators were
6 pursuing a legislative agenda designed to “mak[e] Arizona ‘illegal alien unfriendly.’”
7 Doc. 472-2 at 11. It is reasonable to conclude that the immigration-related bills
8 sponsored by Pearce during this period were intended to serve a similar purpose.
9 B. Legislative Privilege.
10 Because Plaintiffs have shown that the contested documents are relevant to their
11 claims, the burden now shifts to Pearce and the State to show that the documents are
12 privileged. See Tornay, 840 F.2d at 1426. Pearce asserts that nine of the ten documents
13 on his privilege log are protected by the state legislative privilege; the State asserts that
14 all 12 of the documents on its log are so protected.
15 Applying the doctrine of state legislative privilege requires some familiarity with
16 the related doctrine of federal legislative privilege, as well as the corollary doctrines of
17 state and federal legislative immunity. These complex, nebulous doctrines orbit a simple
18 constitutional provision. The Speech and Debate Clause provides that “for any Speech or
19 Debate in either House[, members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other
20 Place.” U.S. Const., art. I, § 6, cl. 1. By its terms, the Clause establishes a privilege that
21 protects members of Congress from being compelled to testify or produce evidence
22 regarding their legislative activities. See Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 616
23 (1972); United States v. Rayburn House Office Bldg., Room 2113, Washington, D.C.
24 20515, 497 F.3d 654, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2007). From this privilege, courts have derived the
25 doctrine of federal legislative immunity, which shields members of Congress from civil
26 or criminal liability for their legislative acts. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421
27 U.S. 491, 507 (1975). In turn, courts have recognized analogous protections for state
28 legislators under federal common law. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372

- 6 -

1 (1951) (recognizing state legislative immunity); EEOC v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary

2 Comm’n, 631 F.3d 174, 181 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing state legislative privilege

3 against “compulsory evidentiary process”). Under these doctrines, state legislators, like

4 members of Congress, enjoy protection from criminal, civil, or evidentiary process that

5 interferes with their “legitimate legislative activity.” See Tenney, 341 U.S. at 376 (state

6 legislative immunity applies to “legitimate legislative activity”); Miller v. Transamerican

7 Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir. 1983) (federal privilege protects “activity that is 8 within the ‘legitimate legislative sphere’”) (citing Eastland, 421 U.S. at 503).3

9

Plaintiffs argue that the state legislative privilege is not applicable here because

10 Pearce’s emails were sent to and received from third-party attorneys, lobbyists, and

11 constituents. Docs. 442 at 17-18; 472 at 8-11. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that Pearce

12 and the State have waived the privilege, or that the privilege must give way to Plaintiffs’

13 interest in vindicating federal constitutional rights. Docs. 442 at 18-19; 472 at 11-12.

14

1. Applicability.

15

The Ninth Circuit has held that because “[o]btaining information pertinent to

16 potential legislation or investigation” is a legitimate legislative activity, the federal

17 legislative privilege applies to communications in which constituents urge their

18 congressperson to initiate or support some legislative action and provide data to

19 document their views. Miller, 709 F.2d at 530. Other courts have held that the federal

20 legislative privilege applies more broadly to a congressperson’s communications with

21 third parties about legislation or legislative strategy. See Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.

22 of Am., Inc. v. Gates, 506 F. Supp. 2d 30, 57 (D.D.C. 2007) (communications with

23 executive branch, constituents, interested organizations, and members of the public are

24 protected by federal legislative privilege if these communications “constitute information

25

26

3 The use of the term “legitimate” in this context connotes only that the legislator

27

was engaged in a bona fide attempt to enact legislation, and does not suggest that the legislation was constitutional or otherwise proper. See Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377 (“The

28

claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege.”); cf. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268 (recognizing that legislators may invoke the privilege in defending

against an equal protection challenge) (citing Tenney).

- 7 -

1 gathering in connection with or in aid of . . . legislative acts”). Courts have held that

2 communications of this type are also protected by the state legislative privilege and

3 immunity doctrines. See Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, No. CV-80-4091-E-BLW, 2006 WL

4 2540090, at *3 (D. Idaho Sept. 1, 2006) (legislator’s communications with third party

5 were protected by state legislative privilege where the purpose of these communications

6 was to gather information for legislative purposes), aff’d in part sub nom. Jeff D. v. Otter,

7 643 F.3d 278 (9th Cir. 2011); Almonte v. City of Long Beach, 478 F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir.

8 2007) (“Meeting[s] with persons outside the legislature – such as executive officers,

9 partisans, political interest groups, or constituents – to discuss issues that bear on

10 potential legislation . . . assist legislators in the discharge of their legislative duty” and are

11 therefore protected by state legislative immunity); Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272, 280

12 (4th Cir. 1980) (“Meeting with ‘interest’ groups, professional or amateur, regardless of

13 their motivation, is a part and parcel of the modern legislative procedures” and is

14 protected by state legislative immunity).

15

There is no dispute that the emails at issue in this case were created in connection

16 with bona fide legislative activity – all but two of them refer to specific legislation in 17 their subject line,4 and many of them include draft legislation. It is precisely because

18 these emails address legislative activity that Plaintiffs claim they are relevant. The Court

19 concludes that these emails are protected by the legislative privilege.

20

Plaintiffs cite four cases to support their argument that the emails are not

21 privileged. None is helpful. Almonte v. City of Long Beach, No. CV 04 4192 JS JO,

22 2007 WL 951863 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2007), was overturned by the Second Circuit on

23 appeal. Almonte, 478 F.3d at 107. The Second Circuit’s decision also abrogated

24 Rodriguez v. Pataki, 280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d 293 F. Supp. 2d 302 (S.D.N.Y.

25 2003). Compare Rodriguez, 280 F. Supp. 2d at 1013 (suggesting that “a conversation

26

27

4 The only exceptions are Pearce Log No. 15, an email from an attorney entitled

28

“comments on RP’s proposed legislative agenda,” and State Log No. 2, an email from a lobbyist entitled “On Life issues and On immigration.” The first email plainly addresses

legislative activity, and it is reasonable to infer that the second does as well.

- 8 -

1 between legislators and knowledgeable outsiders, such as lobbyists, to mark up

2 legislation” would not be privileged), with Almonte, 478 F.3d at 107 (state legislative

3 immunity protects a legislator’s conversations with “executive officers, partisans,

4 political interest groups, or constituents . . . to discuss issues that bear on potential

5 legislation”). Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 15 F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. Va.

6 2014), held that a third party legislative consultant could not invoke the legislative

7 privilege; it is a decision about who can invoke the privilege, not what type of

8 communications are covered. Finally, the dicta in Bastien v. Office of Sen. Ben

9 Nighthorse Campbell, 390 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2004), casting doubt on whether federal

10 legislative immunity applies to informal information (id. at 1316), is contrary to the Ninth

11 Circuit’s holding in Miller, 709 F.2d at 530.

12

Plaintiffs also argue that cases like Miller and Jewish War Veterans are

13 distinguishable because “they address a legislature’s gathering of information, not

14 solicitation of policy advice.” Doc. 472 at 9. But they cite no cases recognizing such a

15 distinction. Rather, the cases instruct that all of a legislator’s communications “that bear

16 on potential legislation” are privileged, Almonte, 478 F.3d at 107, “regardless of their

17 motivation,” Bruce, 631 F.2d at 280.

18

2. Waiver.

19

Plaintiffs argue that Pearce and the State have waived the privilege because they

20 have produced some emails between Pearce and third-party attorneys, lobbyists, and

21 constituents, and because Pearce has testified about some of these emails at his deposition

22 in this case. Doc. 442 at 18-19. Pearce responds that he did not produce any of these

23 emails and that his conduct at his deposition did not constitute a waiver of the privilege.

24 Doc. 467 at 9. The State argues that disclosure of some emails pursuant to a subpoena or

25 public records request cannot constitute waiver of the privilege with respect to emails not

26 disclosed. Doc. 466 at 8.

27

The legislative privilege “is a personal one and may be waived or asserted by each

28 individual legislator.” Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D.

- 9 -

1 292, 298 (D. Md. 1992); see Gravel, 408 U.S. at 622 n.13 (1972). Waiver of the

2 privilege need not be explicit, but “may occur either in the course of the litigation when a

3 party testifies as to otherwise privileged matters, or when purportedly privileged

4 communications are shared with outsiders.” Favors v. Cuomo, 285 F.R.D. 187, 211-12

5 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citations omitted).

6

The Court cannot conclude that Pearce waived the privilege. Plaintiffs do not

7 identify the documents produced by Pearce in this case that allegedly constituted the

8 waiver, nor do they explain why disclosure of the documents constituted a waiver.

9 Pearce asserts that he has produced no documents in this case like those challenged in

10 this motion. Doc. 467 at 10. Plaintiffs make a contrary assertion, but without citation to

11 the record or any specific documents. See Doc. 442 at 9. What is more, Plaintiffs do not

12 specifically identify who, from among the many parties subpoenaed, produced the

13 documents that allegedly resulted in waiver. Id. As noted above, the legislative privilege

14 is personal and must be waived by the individual legislator. Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. at 298.

15

Nor does Pearce’s conduct at his deposition constitute waiver. Pearce answered

16 several questions about his email exchanges with third-party attorneys, lobbyists, and

17 constituents, but Pearce’s answers were quite limited in scope and did not address the

18 content of the emails. Doc. 467-2 at 6-10. Moreover, Pearce’s counsel clarified that

19 these answers should not be construed as a waiver of the privilege. See id. at 8-9.

20

Nor can the Court conclude that the State has waived the privilege. Plaintiffs

21 assert only that the State produced similar communications, but they provide no

22 description of the specific documents that constituted the alleged waiver, no explanation

23 as to why the documents were privileged, and no discussion of the circumstances under 24 which they were disclosed. Docs. 442 at 18-19; 472 at 11.5

25

26

55 Plaintiffs also fail to provide persuasive authority that waiver of the legislative privilege with respect to some documents waives the privilege with respect to any other

27

documents Plaintiffs choose to request. Docs. 442 at 19; 472 at 11. The Court notes that Congress recently tightened the test for attorney-client privilege waivers arising from

28

documents disclosed in federal or state proceedings, see Fed. R. Evid. 502, and the parties do not discuss this Congressionally-enacted rule or its effect on the law of

privilege waivers generally.

- 10 -

1

3. Qualification.

2

“[T]he state legislative privilege is a qualified one . . . when a plaintiff proceeds

3 against the State and seeks evidence to vindicate important public rights guaranteed by

4 federal law.” Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 114 F. Supp. 3d 323, 336 (E.D.

5 Va. 2015) (citing Schaefer, 144 F.R.D. at 304); see also In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d 946,

6 957 (3d Cir. 1987); Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, No. CV 02-03922 MMM RZ,

7 2003 WL 25294710, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2003) (“cases applying a qualified

8 privilege represent the better, and controlling, legal rule”). Whether privileged material

9 must be disclosed is determined by balancing the legislator’s interest in non-disclosure

10 with the movant’s interest in obtaining the material. See In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d at

11 957 (whether privilege is sustained “depend[s] on a balancing of the legitimate interests

12 on both sides”). Both Plaintiffs and the State discuss the five-factor balancing test

13 employed in Bethune-Hill, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 336, which looks to “(i) the relevance of

14 the evidence sought to be protected; (ii) the availability of other evidence; (iii) the

15 seriousness of the litigation and the issues involved; (iv) the role of government in the

16 litigation; and (v) the purposes of the privilege.” Id. (citation omitted).

17

Applying these factors, the Court concludes that the privilege applies. The first

18 and third factors favor Plaintiffs. The Court has found that the emails at issue may be

19 relevant, particularly those that relate to the legislation at issue in this case, and Plaintiffs

20 seek to protect serious constitutional rights. The fourth and fifth factors favor the State

21 and Pearce. The State is a defendant in this case and seeks to uphold the validity of the

22 challenged legislation, as well as protecting the Arizona legislative process from

23 unwarranted intrusion. The purpose of the legislative privilege, as discussed above, is to

24 protect legislators from unwarranted interference with their legislative activity. The

25 Court finds that the second factor – the availability of other evidence – tips the balance.

26 Plaintiffs have access to the traditional sources of legislative history in this case. Indeed,

27 they cited enough of it in their motion for preliminary injunction to persuade this Court

28 and the Ninth Circuit that the statutes in question were directed at unauthorized aliens.

- 11 -

1 See Puente, --- F.3d ---, slip op. at 17 (“We agree with Puente and the district court that

2 the legislative history of both H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 show an intent on the part of

3 Arizona legislators to prevent unauthorized aliens from remaining in the state.”). In

4 addition, Plaintiffs have deposed Pearce, and have obtained documents from the Arizona

5 Legislature, Pearce, Senator Kavanagh, FAIR, IRLI, Kris Kobach, and other former

6 legislators who were subpoenaed. Doc. 442 at 9. The State asserts without contradiction

7 that it has “disclosed literally thousands of emails in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas

8 and public records act requests.” Doc. 466 at 7. The Court concludes that the substantial

9 availability of other evidence in this case tips the balance in favor of the State and Pearce.

10 Plaintiffs have not made the showing necessary to overcome the legislative privilege.

11

C. First Amendment Privilege.

12

A person “who objects to a discovery request as an infringement of [his] First

13 Amendment rights is in essence asserting a First Amendment privilege.” Perry v.

14 Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis deleted). This privilege

15 protects against “compelled disclosure of political associations” where such disclosure

16 would have a “deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. To claim

17 the privilege, a person must show that “enforcement of the discovery requests will result

18 in (1) harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members, or

19 (2) other consequences which objectively suggest an impact on, or chilling of, the

20 members’ associational rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted and alterations

21 incorporated).

22

Pearce asserts the First Amendment privilege with respect to an email from

23 NumbersUSA to Pearce and other NumbersUSA members concerning federal legislation

24 to prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining social security benefits. See Pearce

25 Log No. 21. Pearce submits an affidavit from Roy H. Beck, President and founder of

26 NumbersUSA, which states that the email at issue was “a confidential communication

27 from NumbersUSA to its private and confidential network of interested members and

28 activists,” that “[t]he communication requested that it remain private and not be

- 12 -

1 forwarded to individuals outside the group,” and that “[i]f NumbersUSA is compelled to

2 disclose these communications and information about its participants . . . [t]his will

3 undoubtedly induce members and organizations to withdraw their participation in our

4 current strategy sessions.” Doc. 467-3, ¶¶ 13, 15. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, this

5 affidavit constitutes evidence that disclosure of the contested email might chill

6 NumberUSA’s exercise of its First Amendment rights. Doc. 472 at 1 2. Because Senator

7 Pearce has shown that compelled disclosure of this email might have such a chilling

8 effect, and because the email appears at most marginally relevant to this case, Pearce’s

9 claim of First Amendment privilege will be sustained.

10

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. 442) is denied.

11

Dated this 5th day of May, 2016.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

 
 Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 1 of 26

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PUENTE ARIZONA; SUSAN E. FREDERICK-GRAY; SARA CERVANTES ARREOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 15-15211
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-
DGC

v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

BILL MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity; COUNTY OF MARICOPA, State of Arizona; STATE OF ARIZONA,
Defendants.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 2 of 26

2

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

PUENTE ARIZONA; SUSAN E. FREDERICK-GRAY; SARA CERVANTES ARREOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 15-15213
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-
DGC

v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity; BILL MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity; COUNTY OF MARICOPA, State of Arizona,
Defendants,

and

STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellant.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 3 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

3

PUENTE ARIZONA; SUSAN E. FREDERICK-GRAY; SARA CERVANTES ARREOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

No. 15-15215
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01356-
DGC

v.

OPINION

BILL MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity; COUNTY OF MARICOPA, State of Arizona,
Defendants-Appellants,

and

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in his official capacity; STATE OF ARIZONA,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2016—San Francisco, California
Filed May 2, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 4 of 26

4

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

Before: Barry G. Silverman and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges, and Robert S. Lasnik,* Senior District
Judge.

Opinion by Judge Tallman

SUMMARY**

Civil Rights
The panel vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, reversed the district court’s finding regarding the merits of plaintiffs’ facial preemption claim, dismissed an appeal by Maricopa County, and remanded, in an action challenging provisions of Arizona’s identity theft laws, which prohibit using a false identity to obtain employment.
The panel first rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that Arizona’s employment-related identity theft laws were facially preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act. The panel determined that although some applications of the identity theft laws may come into conflict with the Immigration Reform and Control Act’s comprehensive scheme or with the federal government’s exclusive discretion over immigration-related prosecutions, when the laws are applied to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents those

* The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 5 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

5

concerns are not implicated. Holding that Arizona’s employment-related identity theft laws were not preempted in all applications, the panel vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and reversed the district court’s finding that plaintiffs’ facial preemption challenge was likely to succeed on the merits. The panel remanded with instructions to evaluate the merits of plaintiffs’ remaining claims, including the as-applied preemption challenge.

The panel dismissed Maricopa County’s appeal from the district court’s denial of the County’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The panel held that the County’s appeal did not fall within one of the narrow categories where invoking pendent jurisdiction would be proper.

COUNSEL
Dominic Draye (argued), John R. Lopez, IV, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant State of Arizona.
Douglas L. Irish, Thomas P. Liddy, J. Kenneth Mangum, Ann Thompson Uglietta, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office; Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant William Montgomery.
Michele Marie Iafrate, Iafrate & Associates, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant Joseph M. Arpaio.
Jessica Vosburgh (argued) National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Hoover, Alabama; Cindy Pánuco (argued), Joshua Piovia-Scott, and Dan Stormer, Hadsell Stormer & Renick

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 6 of 26

6

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

LLC, Pasadena, California; Anne Lai, University of California, Irvine School of Law—Immigrant Rights Clinic, Irvine, California; Daniel J. Pochoda, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Jessica Karp Bansal, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Los Angeles, California; Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado, PLC, Phoenix, Arizona, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Victor Stone, Russell P. Butler, Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center Inc., Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Steve Twist, Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona, for Amici Curiae Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Inc., National Identity Theft Victim Assistance Network, Inc., and Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center Inc.

William L. Thorpe, Spencer G. Scharff, Thorpe Shwer, P.C., Phoenix, Arizona, for Amici Curiae Professors Doris Marie Provine and Cecilia Menjívar.

Joshua T. Stehlik, Nicholas Espíritu, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae National Immigration Law Center, et al.

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Lindsey Powell, Jeffrey E. Sandberg, William E. Havemann, Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae United States of America.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 7 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

7

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:

An immigrant advocacy organization, Puente Arizona, along with individual unauthorized aliens1 and taxpayers of Maricopa County (collectively “Puente”), challenge provisions of Arizona’s identity theft laws which prohibit using a false identity to obtain employment. The district court found the laws facially preempted by federal immigration policy and granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Arizona government defendants (collectively “Arizona”) from enforcing the challenged provisions. Arizona appeals that preliminary injunction, and defendant Maricopa County individually appeals its liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Because we find that the challenged laws are not preempted in all applications, we reverse the district court’s holding that the laws are likely facially preempted and we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction. We also dismiss Maricopa County’s Monell appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We remand for consideration of the as-applied challenge to the statutes.

I

This case began when Arizona amended its identity theft laws to reach the growing problem of employment-related identity theft within the state. Arizona passed H.B. 2779 in

1 We use the term “unauthorized alien” throughout this opinion to refer to “aliens who have entered or are present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law.” Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1012 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013).

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 8 of 26

8

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

2007, known as the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” which amended Arizona’s aggravated identity theft statute, A.R.S. § 13-2009. The statute now prohibits using the information of another (real or fictitious) person “with the intent to obtain employment.” A.R.S. § 13-2009. In 2008, Arizona passed H.B. 2745, titled “Employment of Unauthorized Aliens,” which expanded Arizona’s general identity theft statute to also reach employment-related identity theft. See A.R.S. § 13-2008(A).

These bills were passed, at least in part, in an effort to solve some of Arizona’s problems stemming from illegal immigration. The titles of the legislation and the legislative history show an intent on the part of Arizona legislators to prevent unauthorized aliens from coming to and remaining in the state. But these bills were also aimed at curbing the growing and well-documented problem of identity theft in Arizona. Between 2006 and 2008, Arizona had the highest per-capita identity theft rates in the nation, and one third of all identity theft complaints in the state involved employment-related fraud.2

Since the laws were amended, Arizona has been aggressively enforcing employment-related identity theft.

2 See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data: January - December 2006 at 18, 22 (2007), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports_annual/sentinelcy-2006/sentinel-cy2006.pdf; Fed. Trade Comm’n, Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data: January - December 2007 at 18, 22 (2008), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports_annua l/sentinel-cy-2007/sentinel-cy2007.pdf; Fed. Trade Comm’n, Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January - December 2008 at 14, 20 (2009), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports_annua l/sentinel-cy-2008/sentinel-cy2008.pdf.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 9 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

9

Although most of these enforcement actions have been brought against unauthorized aliens, some authorized aliens and U.S. citizens have also been prosecuted. And while many of the people prosecuted under the identity theft laws used a false identity to prove that they are authorized to work in the United States, other defendants used false documents for non-immigration related reasons. For example, Arizona has prosecuted U.S. citizens who used another individual’s identity to hide a negative criminal history from a potential employer.

In response to these prosecutions, Puente challenged the amended identity theft laws as unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. In an attempt to repeal the identity theft laws, Puente sued Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County, and the State of Arizona. On August 8, 2014, Puente moved for a preliminary injunction solely on its facial preemption claim.

Relying on recent Supreme Court precedent, Puente argued that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) established a “comprehensive framework” for regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens, and therefore Arizona’s employment-related identity theft laws were facially preempted. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2504 (2012). The District Court agreed that the laws were likely unconstitutional on their face and granted the requested preliminary injunction on conflict and field preemption grounds on January 5, 2015.

Specifically, the district court enjoined Arizona “from enforcing A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3) and the portion of A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) that addresses actions committed ‘with the

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 10 of 26

10

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

intent to obtain or continue employment.’”3 In the same order, the district court also denied Maricopa County’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under Monell. Maricopa County argued that its lack of control over Sheriff Arpaio shows that he is not a final policymaker for the County. The district court rejected that argument because control is just one factor in the Monell policymaker analysis. The County moved for reconsideration and the district court again held that the Sheriff is a policymaker.

Arizona then filed this timely interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s preliminary injunction. Maricopa County also seeks review of the district court’s Monell holding. But there has been no final judgment entered to date, and the merits of this case remain pending in the district court. Importantly, the district court has yet to consider the merits of Puente’s as-applied preemption challenge.

II

We turn first to the preliminary injunction. Preliminary injunctive relief is subject to “limited review” on appeal. See Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 993–94 (9th Cir. 2011). A preliminary injunction should only be set aside if the district court “abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Peninsula Commc’ns, Inc., 287 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court’s legal conclusions, such as whether a statute is

3 For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to these challenged provisions as the “identity theft laws.”

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 11 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

11

preempted, are reviewed de novo. See In re Korean Air Lines Co., 642 F.3d 685, 691 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must prove “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).4 Here, the district court found that Puente met its burden on each element of the Winter test. We disagree, and hold that Puente is not likely to succeed on, and has not raised serious questions about, the merits of its facial challenge. This conclusion is guided by principles of preemption jurisprudence and the unique burdens imposed on facial challenges.

We first address long-held principles of preemption. Congress of course has the power, under the Supremacy Clause, to preempt state law. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2500. Congress may exercise this power expressly or preemption may be implied where the state law is in an area fully occupied by federal regulation or where it conflicts with federal law. Id. at 2500–01.

There are two types of conflict preemption. Id. at 2501. Conflict preemption occurs where (1) it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law, or (2) where the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and

4 Because the Ninth Circuit utilizes a “sliding scale” approach to the Winter test, a preliminary injunction is also appropriate when a plaintiff raises “serious questions” as to the merits and “the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F. 3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 12 of 26

12

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)). Field preemption can also take two forms. A law is field preempted where (1) the “regulatory framework is so pervasive” that there is no room for state regulation, or (2) where the “federal interest [is] so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Id. (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)).

In both field and conflict preemption cases, the touchstone of our inquiry is congressional intent. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). When analyzing congressional intent “we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Id. (quoting Rice, 331 U.S. at 230). Puente argues that this presumption against preemption does not apply here because the identity theft laws do not regulate in an area of historic state power.5 We reject this argument because, while the identity theft laws certainly have effects in the area of immigration, the text of the laws regulate for the health and safety of the people of Arizona. See Medtronic Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996). Therefore, only if Congress’s intent to preempt the challenged state statute is “clear and manifest” may we deem the statute preempted. See Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565.

5 The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Wyeth and applied the presumption against preemption even though the state tort claim at issue in that case touched on an area of historic federal regulation. See Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565 n.3.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 13 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

13

We are also guided by the rules that apply to facial challenges. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987), instructs that to succeed on a facial challenge the plaintiff must show that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” Salerno’s applicability in preemption cases is not entirely clear, however. In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court recognizes a type of facial challenge in which a statute will be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740 n.7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring)). Whether the “substantial number of applications” test applies to facial preemption challenges has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. Without more direction, we have chosen to continue applying Salerno. United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012); Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 579 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).6 We therefore proceed, keeping in mind the high bar that Puente must overcome under Salerno before

6 The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Arizona does not cite Salerno, which has led some courts to conclude Salerno does not apply to facial preemption challenges. See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297, 313 n.22 (3d Cir. 2013). Lozano is an immigration preemption case in which the Third Circuit essentially found a strict application of Salerno’s rule incompatible with substantive preemption doctrine. See id. The district court in this case employed Lozano’s reasoning to hold that Salerno should not apply here. Salerno remains binding law in the Ninth Circuit, however, and we are not free to ignore it. Sprint Telephony, 543 F.3d at 579 n.3 (“In cases involving federal preemption of a local statute, . . . the [Salerno] rule applies with full force.”).

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 14 of 26

14

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

we may strike down the identity theft laws on this facial challenge.

Applying the preemption and facial challenges framework discussed above, we conclude that the identity theft laws are not facially preempted because they have obvious constitutional applications. This case is made significantly easier by the scope of Arizona’s interlocutory appeal and the text of the challenged provisions.

First, the scope of this appeal is limited. Puente moved for a preliminary injunction based solely on its claim that the identity theft laws are facially preempted under the Supremacy Clause. See Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., Case No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2014) at 1 (“[T]he challenged provisions constitute a facially invalid state intrusion into an area of exclusive federal control.”). Based on this facial challenge, Puente asked the district court to enjoin enforcement of all applications of the identity theft laws. See id. The district court has yet to address Puente’s as-applied challenge, and without a fully developed record we think it inappropriate now to enjoin only certain applications of the identity theft laws.7 See 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law

7 We thank the United States for filing a helpful amicus brief in this matter, but we decline to implement their suggestion to engage in an asapplied analysis. The United States agrees with us that the identity theft laws are constitutional on their face but has asked us to narrow the preliminary injunction to prohibit two applications of the laws: (1) enforcement actions that rely on the Form I-9, and (2) prosecutions of “fraud committed to demonstrate work authorization under federal immigration law.” On this facial challenge we decline to enjoin certain applications of the laws. The question of which applications of the laws are preempted is properly left for the district court, which has yet to rule or create a suitable record on Puente’s as-applied challenge.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 15 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

15

§ 243 (2016) (discussing the importance of factual findings on an as-applied challenge).

Second, we think it significant that the identity theft laws are textually neutral—that is, they apply to unauthorized aliens, authorized aliens, and U.S. citizens alike. Both A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) sanction “[a]ny person” who commits identity theft to obtain employment. As noted in hypotheticals raised at oral argument, these laws could easily be applied to a sex offender who uses a false identity to get a job at a daycare center. Or the laws could be applied to stop a convicted felon from lying about his criminal history on a job application for a position of trust. In fact, Arizona has prosecuted U.S. citizens for doing just that. The key point is this: one could not tell that the identity theft laws undermine federal immigration policy by looking at the text itself. Only when studying certain applications of the laws do immigration conflicts arise.

Bearing in mind the scope of our review and the statutory language, we now turn to the ultimate question: Are the identity theft laws facially preempted by federal immigration law?

Puente argues that the identity theft laws are in conflict with and are field preempted by IRCA. Puente contends that the identity theft laws are preempted for three reasons: (1) the laws were passed with an intent to regulate immigration; (2) the laws conflict with the federal government’s choice of sanctions and exclusive prosecutorial discretion for immigration-related crimes; and (3) the laws conflict with the text of IRCA. We reject all three of these arguments. Although there is tension between the federal scheme and some applications of the identity theft laws, we hold that this

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 16 of 26

16

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

tension is not enough to rise to the level of a “clear and manifest purpose” to preempt the identity theft laws in their entirety. See Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565.

The parties argue vigorously about the import of state legislative history in this case. But these arguments about whether to look to state legislative history miss the mark in two ways. First, Arizona’s legislative history tells us nothing about whether Congress intended to preempt state statutes like the identity theft laws. If Congress intended to preempt laws like the one challenged here, it would not matter what Arizona’s motives were; the laws would clearly be preempted.

Second, when we do look to state action, we look primarily to a statute’s effects to determine if the state encroached on an area Congress intended to reserve.8 See Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 105 (1992). Said another way, it does not matter if Arizona passed the identity theft laws for a good or bad purpose—what matters is whether the legislature succeeded in carrying out that purpose. See Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336 (1979) (“[W]hen considering the purpose of a challenged statute, [courts are] not bound by ‘[t]he name, description or characterization given it by the legislature or

8 We do not mean to suggest that the state’s purpose in passing a statute is not relevant to our preemption analysis, as both this court and the Supreme Court have analyzed purpose in preemption cases. See N.Y. State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 658 (1995); Tillison v. City of San Diego, 406 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005). In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, we hold only that state legislative purpose is not dispositive. See Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 651–52 (1971) (overruling prior preemption cases that focused on “the purpose rather than the effect of state laws”).

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 17 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

17

the courts of the State,’ but will determine for [themselves] the practical impact of the law.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, the crucial question is whether Congress intended to preempt the identity theft laws given the practical effect of those laws. We think not.

We agree with Puente and the district court that the legislative history of both H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 show an intent on the part of Arizona legislators to prevent unauthorized aliens from remaining in the state. But if that was the legislature’s only goal, it failed. The legislature also rectified the growing problem of employment-related identity theft. We think Congress would agree that the identity theft laws validly apply to any person who uses another’s identity for non-immigration reasons. There is evidence in the record that the laws have been applied to people who use another’s identity to hide their criminal record. Congress could not have intended to preempt the state from sanctioning crimes that protect citizens of the state under Arizona’s traditional police powers without intruding on federal immigration policy. Thus, we hold that despite the state legislative history, Congress did not intend to preempt state criminal statutes like the identity theft laws.9

Next, Puente argues that the identity theft laws are preempted because they conflict with the federal government’s enforcement techniques and exclusive

9 On remand, Puente may again produce evidence of the Arizona legislature’s intent to regulate immigration when asking the district court to enjoin certain immigration-related applications of the identity theft laws. We hold only that this legislative history is not sufficient to doom the statutes where they can be validly applied in ways that do not implicate immigration.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 18 of 26

18

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

discretion in the area of immigration. In making these arguments, Puente relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona. There, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that made it a misdemeanor for “an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2503.

The Arizona Court held that this statute was in conflict with IRCA’s “comprehensive framework for combating the employment of illegal aliens.” Id. at 2504 (internal quotation omitted). Examining the legislative history of IRCA, the Court pointed to failed proposals to criminalize unauthorized aliens applying for work. Id. Because Congress “made a deliberate choice” to punish employers instead of employees with criminal sanctions under IRCA, Arizona’s attempt to create a crime on the employee-side conflicted “with the careful balance struck by Congress” in this area. Id. at 2504–05. Essentially, this conflict in statutory remedies between the federal and state statutes rendered the state statute unconstitutional. Id. at 2505. Puente argues that a similar conflict in techniques is present here because the identity theft laws authorize different (and generally harsher) punishments than authorized under federal law.

Puente also argues that the identity theft laws deprive the United States of necessary prosecutorial discretion over immigration-related crimes. We recently found this argument persuasive in Valle del Sol. 732 F.3d at 1027; see also Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, No. 15-15307, 2016 WL 1358378, at *6 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) (explaining that the Executive has “very broad discretion” to determine immigration enforcement priorities). The statute at issue in Valle del Sol criminalized harboring and transporting

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 19 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

19

unauthorized aliens. Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1012–13. The harboring statute in Valle del Sol “divest[ed] federal authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute these crimes” in line with federal priorities. Id. at 1027. Because Arizona had given itself the power to prosecute harboring crimes in state court it could do so “in a manner unaligned with federal immigration enforcement priorities.” Id. This co-opting of federal discretion over enforcement, coupled with different statutory penalties under state law, led the Valle del Sol court to hold Arizona’s harboring statute unconstitutional. Id. at 1029. Puente argues that like the harboring statute in Valle del Sol, the identity theft laws undermine federal discretion to punish immigration-related fraud in line with federal priorities.

While these arguments may be persuasive in the context of Puente’s as-applied challenge, we do not find them persuasive in a facial attack. Arizona, Valle del Sol, and their progeny10 are easily distinguishable from this case. In those cases, the contested state statutes, on their face, applied only to unauthorized aliens, so every application of the statute had the potential to conflict with federal immigration policy. In contrast, the statutes at issue here make it a crime for “any person” to use a false document to gain employment.

Although some applications of the identity theft laws may come into conflict with IRCA’s “comprehensive scheme” or

10 The list of cases analyzing preemption in the immigration context is large and continuously growing. The vast majority of these cases analyze statutes or government actions that apply only to unauthorized aliens. See, e.g., Arizona Brewer, No. 15-15307, 2016 WL 1358378, at *10 (explaining why the policy at issue in that case applied to only unauthorized aliens and highlighting other similar cases).

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 20 of 26

20

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

with the federal government’s exclusive discretion over immigration-related prosecutions, when the laws are applied to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents those concerns are not implicated. Thus, Arizona, Valle del Sol, and all other preemption cases where the statutory language singles out unauthorized aliens, do not control here. In this case, Arizona exercised its police powers to pass criminal laws that apply equally to unauthorized aliens, authorized aliens, and U.S. citizens. Just because some applications of those laws implicate federal immigration priorities does not mean that the statute as a whole should be struck down.

Finally, Puente makes an argument for preemption based on the text of IRCA. Puente argues that IRCA was drafted to allow only federal government prosecutions of those who use false documents to obtain employment. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5), (d)(2)(F)–(G). In particular, IRCA provides that any information employees submit to indicate their work status “may not be used” for purposes other than prosecution under specified federal criminal statutes for fraud, perjury, and related conduct. Id. § 1324a(b)(5).

Again, we reject this argument because this is a facial challenge and this argument applies only to certain applications of the statute not evident from the statute’s text. IRCA’s document use limitation is only violated when the identity theft laws are applied in ways that rely on the Form I-9 and attached documents. Just because Arizona could (and has in the past) enforced the identity theft laws in violation of IRCA’s document use limitation does not mean the laws should be struck down in their entirety. Arizona retains the power to enforce the laws in ways that do not implicate federal immigration priorities. While the district court may ultimately decide to enjoin identity theft enforcement actions

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 21 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

21

which rely on I-9 documents, that is not a reason to strike down the laws in their entirety.

In sum, we reject all of Puente’s arguments because each one applies to only certain applications of the identity theft laws. Accordingly, Puente has not met its burden of showing a clear and manifest purpose to completely preempt these laws. See Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enf’t v. Dillingham Const., N.A., 519 U.S. 316, 334 (1997) (“We could not hold pre-empted a state law in an area of traditional state regulation based on so tenuous a relation without doing grave violence to our presumption that Congress intended nothing of the sort.”). Because Puente has not come forward with a compelling reason why the statute is preempted on its face, we hold that Puente has not raised a serious question going to the merits of its facial challenge.

We stress again that the only question for us to answer on this facial challenge is whether the identity theft laws should be enjoined in all contexts as applied to all parties. On this record, we cannot say that every application is unconstitutional. Thus, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and reverse its finding that Puente’s facial challenge is likely to succeed on the merits. In doing so, we make no comment on the viability of Puente’s asapplied challenge still pending in the district court.

III

We now turn to Maricopa County’s Monell appeal. The district court found that Sheriff Arpaio is a policymaker for Maricopa County. Accordingly, the Court held that the County can be liable for the Sheriff’s actions under § 1983 based on Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 22 of 26

22

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

658 (1978).11 The County attempts to appeal this ruling, arguing that it has no control over the Sheriff, a state official under Arizona law, so it should not be liable for his actions. In response, Puente argues that this issue is not properly before the court on an interlocutory preliminary injunction appeal. We agree.

Generally parties must wait for final judgment to appeal a district court’s ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. But in some circumstances an interlocutory order is immediately appealable by statute—for example, when an interlocutory order grants an injunction. Id. § 1292(a)(1). In that case, we may exercise pendent jurisdiction over issues outside the injunction only if the issue is “inextricably intertwined” with or “necessary to ensure meaningful review of” the injunction. Meredith v. Oregon, 321 F.3d 807, 812–13, amended, 326 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Swint v. Chambers Cty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995)).

Since 1995, the Supreme Court has made clear that invocation of pendent jurisdiction should be extremely limited. See Swint, 514 U.S. at 45–48. Post-Swint, we have been hesitant to find pendent jurisdiction and we interpret the “inextricably intertwined” standard narrowly. Meredith, 321 F.3d at 813–15. The standard is only satisfied where the issues are “(a) [] so intertwined that we must decide the pendent issue in order to review the claims properly raised on interlocutory appeal, or (b) resolution of the issue properly raised on interlocutory appeal necessarily resolves the

11 In Monell, the Supreme Court held that local governments can be liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations resulting from “policy or custom . . . made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” 436 U.S. at 694.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 23 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

23

pendent issue.” Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1285 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (Oct. 31, 2000) (internal citations omitted).

Issues are not “inextricably intertwined” when courts apply different legal standards to each issue. Id. For example, in Swint, the Supreme Court held the Eleventh Circuit erred in exercising pendent jurisdiction over a county’s Monell liability, in part, because that issue could not be “inextricably intertwined” with the proper subject of the interlocutory appeal—qualified immunity. Swint, 514 U.S. at 51. The Swint Court suggested that a premature Monell appeal could not be bootstrapped onto a proper qualified immunity interlocutory appeal because the issues involved different legal inquiries. See id. While “qualified immunity turns on whether [individuals] violated clearly established federal law,” a county’s liability under Monell for the sheriff’s actions turned “on the allocation of law enforcement power.” Id. Even though the issues shared common facts, that was not enough to confer pendent jurisdiction where the issues involved different legal tests. See id; see also Cunningham, 229 F.3d at 1285.

Post-Swint, we have found pendent jurisdiction in two narrow categories of cases. First, jurisdiction is proper when the pendent issue implicates “the very power the district court used to issue the rulings” under review. Hendricks v. Bank of Am., 408 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Meredith, 321 F.3d at 816). For example, we have exercised jurisdiction over issues of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction when attending an interlocutory appeal. Id.; Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2005). Issues, such as jurisdiction, which question the authority of the court are “necessary to ensure meaningful

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 24 of 26

24

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

review of” injunctions because if the appellate court does not have jurisdiction then it does not have the authority to address any issue on appeal. See Hendricks, 408 F.3d at 1134.

Second, we have also exercised pendent jurisdiction over a small set of cases where ruling on the merits of the proper interlocutory appeal will necessarily resolve all of the remaining issues presented by the pendent appeal. See Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir. 2000). To illustrate, in Huskey we held that a city’s Monell appeal in a § 1983 case was “inextricably intertwined” with an individual defendant’s appeal from a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Id. at 904–05. There, we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for a city attorney because the plaintiff failed to show a constitutional violation. Id. at 902. Since this decision “necessarily foreclose[d] the possibility of the [c]ity’s § 1983 liability,” we exercised pendent jurisdiction over the city’s Monell liability and held that the district court erred in denying the city’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 904.

We hold that we do not have pendent jurisdiction over Maricopa County’s Monell liability. A district court’s order denying a county’s motion to dismiss under Monell is generally not immediately appealable. See Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1366 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we must find that the County’s Monell liability is “inextricably intertwined” with the preliminary injunction to address the merits of the County’s argument. The fact that the parties briefed the Monell issue separately is a good indicator that it involves different legal standards from the injunction appeal. Just as the Supreme Court refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction in Swint because issues of Monell liability and qualified immunity involve different legal tests, we refuse to

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 25 of 26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

25

combine a Monell appeal with an action revolving around application of the Winter test and preemption principles. These legal inquiries are analytically distinct.

Nor does the Monell issue fall within one of the narrow categories of pendent jurisdiction. The Monell issue does not question the district court’s authority to impose an injunction. Unlike jurisdictional issues and certain immunities from suit, Monell is just a defense to liability. See Swint, 514 U.S. at 43. If a county can show that the alleged wrongdoer is not a policymaker that does not mean the court is without power to hear the case, it simply means the court should grant judgment for the county.

Finally, because we reverse the district court’s preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings, this case is also unlike the Huskey line of cases where ruling on the interlocutory appeal necessarily resolves the pendent appeal. In Huskey, we agreed to hear a city’s premature appeal because we had already decided the plaintiff could not succeed on his § 1983 claim and therefore the city could not be liable. This case is inapposite—here we do not comment on the merits of Puente’s as-applied preemption challenge or its equal protection challenge, both of which remain pending and should be addressed in the first instance by the district court. Thus, our ruling on the preliminary injunction today does not resolve the County’s ultimate liability in this case.

Because this case does not fall within one of the narrow categories where invoking pendent jurisdiction is proper, we dismiss Maricopa County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-1, Page 26 of 26

26

PUENTE ARIZONA V. ARPAIO

IV

We hold that Arizona’s employment-related identity theft laws are not preempted in all applications. We reverse the district court’s finding that the laws are likely facially preempted. We also vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to evaluate the merits of Puente’s remaining claims, including the as-applied preemption challenge. Finally, we dismiss Maricopa County’s Monell appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to renew that argument before final judgment is rendered.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

REVERSED in part, injunction VACATED, DISMISSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 1 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 2 of 285

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report Subject

Page No.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sentinel Complaints by Calendar Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sentinel Top Complaint Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sentinel Fraud Complaints
Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Total Number of Internet-Related Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers for Internet-Related Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sentinel Identity Theft Complaints

ILLHLdaaaoerrwwnggteeEiIsstdynttefMMTnotrheeicettteyrrfoomtTppCehoonoelltmiiftttCaapVnnolcaniiAAticetndatrriteecimsnaat bPsssfu’yoRRerInVaantInenfdiockkAetriirniinnmzmtogginatyaAfftioovoTg.rrneAhFIrdeIp.rsfaea.tinuoM.V,td.iNiti.sCoycu..to1Tis.m5me.h-d1s.ep5f.l2t.a.1.i.C1..n..ao.tr.s.mc..h...ip.v...el....ad...i.on...n.t....sA...p...r...il.....2...8...,....2.....0...1...6.................................................

13 14 15
16 17

Fraud Complaints and Identity Theft Victims by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Detailed State Complaint Figures
One page per State and the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Each detailed State report contains the following information:
 Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Consumers  Amount Paid Reported by Consumers  Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims

Appendices Appendix A1: Description of the Sentinel Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix A2: Sentinel Major Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix A3: Other Sentinel Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Appendix B: Description of the Sentinel Complaint Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Appendix C1: Fraud Complaints for Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix C2: Identity Theft Complaints for Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Federal Trade Commission

Page 1 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 3 of 285
INTRODUCTION

Consumer Sentinel Leading Partners & Data Contributors

Between January and December 2006, Consumer Sentinel, the complaint database developed and maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), received over 670,000 consumer fraud and identity theft complaints. Consumers reported losses from fraud of more than $1.1 billion. The reports in this booklet analyze those complaints.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Better Business Bureaus

Consumer Sentinel collects information about consumer fraud

and identity theft from the FTC and over 115 other organizations and makes it available to law enforcement

Department of Defense

partners across the nation and throughout the world for use in

their investigations. Launched in 1997, the Sentinel database

now includes over 3.5 million complaints. Some future data tftironraotcnamrlsefan2esu0rems0o6fbrveobermurotthfohetcahovcemeorunporolrsagteiacyniontetefsidtztirbnaheetPefieuloenennncetsretxeeAwtcdrfieizeiloinlvwnacetovhdm.ni.AsotrapAnraietincohp,csocNo.orort.mdT1mi5hpn-1aelg5ayl2aiy1nd1,tdastihrcteihoivned

on

April

2F8Ce, do2em0rm1al6isTsriaodne

of complaints from other data contributors is also reflected in

National Association of Attorneys General

the larger totals from previous years than were reported in

earlier FTC reports.

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Internet Crime Complaint Center
National Consumers League

For more information about Consumer Sentinel, as well as information about consumer fraud and identity theft, visit the Consumer Sentinel public website at www.consumer.gov/sentinel. If you represent a law enforcement organization, call (202) 326-3196 or e-mail sentinel@ftc.gov for membership information.

Canada’s Phonebusters

Social Security Administration

U.S. Postal Inspection Service

U.S. Secret Service

The Consumer Sentinel Network (For detailed description and data contributors, see Appendices A1 through A3)

www.consumer.gov/sentinel Federal Trade Commission

www.econsumer.gov

www.consumer.gov/ idtheft

Page 2 of 90

www.consumer.gov/ military Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 4 of 285

Executive Summary Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data
January – December 2006
xConsumer Sentinel now contains over 3.5 million fraud and identity theft complaints and is accessible to over 1,600 law enforcement agencies – including every state attorney general in the U.S. and consumer protection agencies in 19 nations.
xThe FTC received over 670,000 Consumer Sentinel complaints during calendar year 2006 - 36% were identity theft complaints and 64% were related to other types of fraud.
Fraud
xA total of 428,319 of the Consumer Sentinel complaints were fraud-related. Shop-atHome/Catalog Sales was the leading complaint category with 7% of the overall complaints, followed by Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries (7%), Internet Services and Computer Complaints (6%), Internet Auctions (5%), Foreign Money Offers (3%), and Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair (2%). xxp$mCT5aei0hotdh0en.o.spudeEmrcicgoeehnrnstttyiarn-egcufpiieteevosdoertftinpeofdePriraunfcuerceandrntueetcadAooslremfioz.tosphsnTleeaawsivcn.eootAnnsfrtspowyuav-iimoteth,hrerNr$ewose1.ir.1rp1ee5ep-bt1rorci5arle2ltn1iniosn1tfngaoe;rrffctrhahtahisveueetdmdhceaooenldnrsAeisoapupnrromielrmp2et8eoro,dsrn2trep0eed1tapa6yaormynrteelaondmstswouwirneats transfer as the payment method, an increase of 8 percentage points from calendar year 2005.
xSome 60% of fraud complaints where the company's method of initial contact was reported indicate Internet solicitations - electronic mail at 45% and web at 15%. Seventy-two percent of all fraud complaints reported the method of initial contact.
xThe metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of reported consumer fraud complaints are Greeley, Colorado; Albany-Lebanon, Oregon; and Napa, California.
Identity Theft
xCredit card fraud (25%) was the most common form of reported identity theft followed by phone or utilities fraud (16%), bank fraud (16%), and employment fraud (14%). Other significant categories of identity theft reported by victims were government documents/benefits fraud (10%) and loan fraud (5%).
xElectronic fund transfer-related identity theft continues to be the most frequently reported type of identity theft bank fraud during calendar year 2006.
xThe metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of reported identity theft are Napa, California; Madera, California; and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 3 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

(in thousands)

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 5 of 285

Sentinel Complaints by Calendar Year1

- Identity Theft Complaints

- Fraud Complaints

700

657,591

693,519

674,354

600

38%

246,882

37%

255,613

36% 246,035

500

400

300

62% 410,709

63% 437,906

64% 428,319

200

100

0T1PheersceenfitgaugreesCsaerYxecb-lcau2isdteee0ddN0oinan4tPitohuneeantloteDtaAol rnNizuoomtnbaCeavrl.loARfrSpeCgaeiniosYtt,irnNye-olc2.oc1mo05mp0-1lpa55lia2ni1tns1t.sabrychcivaeledndonarAyperailrC.28Y, 20-126006
Fraud Complaints by Calendar Year2 (Excluding Identity Theft)

410,709

437,906

428,319

400

Internet-Related

45% 197,084 48% Fraud Complaints

300

51% 210,850

204,881

(in thousands)

200

Other Fraud

55% 240,822 52% 49% 199,859

Complaints
223,438

100

0
CY-2004

CY-2005

CY-2006

2Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel fraud complaints by calendar year.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 4 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 6 of 285

Sentinel Top Complaint Categories1 January 1 – December 31, 2006

Rank Top Categories

Complaints

1 Identity Theft

246,035

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

46,995

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

45,587

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

41,243

5 Internet Auctions

32,832

6 Foreign Money Offers

20,411

7 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

10,857

8 9 10 11 12

Magazines and Buyers Clubs
Telephone Services
Health Care TBruasvineel,ssVOacpaptsioannsdcaitenWddionTrPkiume-naettes-AhHraizoromneaev.PAlrapanios,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

8,924 8,165 7,467 7,460 6,712

13 Office Supplies and Services

5,723

14 Grants: Scholarships/Educational & Non-Educational

5,310

15 Employ Agencies/Job Counsel/Overseas Work

4,485

16 Investments

3,630

Other Coded Complaints

12,399

Percentage1 36% 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

1Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel complaints (674,354) received by the FTC between January 1 and December 31, 2006. Twenty-four percent (160,399) of the Sentinel complaints received by the FTC did not contain specific product service codes. For Sentinel category descriptions, see Appendix B.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 5 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 7 of 285

Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

CY
2004 2005 2006

Total No. of Complaints
410,709 437,906 428,319

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid
310,299 285,255 364,500

Percentage of

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid

Amount Paid

Reported

76%

$568,702,566

65%

$683,484,366

85%

$1,187,305,506

Average Amount Paid1
$1,833 $2,396 $3,257

Median Amount Paid2
$262 $349 $500

1Average is based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 310,299; CY-2005 = 285,255 ; and CY-2006 = 364,500. One hundred eighty-four consumers reported an amount paid of $1 million or more during CY-2006; 42 and 49 consumers for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively. 2Median is the middle number in a set of numbers so that half the numbers have values that are greater than the median and half have values that are less. Calculation of the median excludes complaints with amount paid reported as $0.
Distribution of Fraud Complaints by Reported Amount cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016 Paid Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Amount Paid $0 $1 - 25 $26 - 50 $51 - 75 $76 - 100 $101 - 250 $251 - 500 $501 - 1,000 $1,001 - 5,000 More than $5,000

CY - 2004

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3

93,913 30%

91,028 32%

154,157

42%

21,529

7%

17,053

6%

15,133

4%

21,602

7%

17,635

6%

15,845

4%

13,539

4%

9,816

3%

9,128

3%

12,185

4%

9,453

3%

9,222

3%

37,811 12%

30,383 11%

28,633

8%

34,488 11%

27,443 10%

28,382

8%

25,232

8%

23,420

8%

29,591

8%

38,860 13%

45,109 16%

58,253

16%

11,140

4%

13,915

5%

16,156

4%

3Percentages are based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 310,299; CY-2005 = 285,255; and CY-2006 = 364,500.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 6 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 8 of 285

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers1 January 1 - December 31, 2006
50%

40%

30%

30%

20%
20%

23%

13%

9%

10%

0%

4%
ADBcceaobnukitcnittedCinAaPdsuhve/aCnntecaesAhrizonCa hv.eAcrkpaio,

No. 15-15211
Credit
Cards

archived on
Money Order

April 282, 2%016
Telephone Bill

Wire Transfer

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

CY - 2004

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

Payment Method Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid

Bank Account Debit 18,293 25%

$29,018,295 14,800 23%

$26,448,149

13,158 20%

$37,730,151

Cash/Cash Advance

2,703 4%

$12,875,063

2,383 4%

$17,210,216

2,443 4%

$13,245,181

Check 12,242 16%

$67,784,762 10,432 16%

$75,249,254

8,627 13%

$96,381,891

Credit Cards 20,617 28%

$25,143,016 19,366 30%

$37,174,388

20,477 30%

$40,668,000

Money Order 10,812 15%

$17,456,243

7,193 11%

$12,537,883

5,912 9%

$20,365,907

Telephone Bill

1,707 2%

$436,364

1,175 2%

$491,499

1,267 2%

$418,295

Wire Transfer

7,890 11%

Total Reporting Payment Method

74,264

$88,602,827

9,486 15%

64,835

$86,588,141 15,464 23% $149,642,547 67,348

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the method of payment: CY-2004 = 74,264; CY-2005 = 64,835; and CY-2006 = 67,348. 16% of the consumers reported this information during CY-2006, 18% and 15% for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 7 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 9 of 285

Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers1 January 1 - December 31, 2006

Internet - E-mail
Internet - Web Site/Others
Mail

15% 16%

45%

Phone

13%

Others
cited in Puente

Arizona

v.

10%
Arpaio, No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers

Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Contact Method Internet - E-mail Internet - Web Site/Others Mail Phone Others
Total Reporting Contact Method

CY - 2004

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1

109,333 33%

111,479 34%

138,160

45%

72,437 22%

64,040 20%

46,698

15%

46,688 14%

59,695 18%

50,340

16%

54,777 17%

53,531 17%

39,414

13%

45,141 14%

34,832 11%

31,749

10%

328,376

323,577

306,361

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints for each calendar year where company’s method of initial contact was reported by consumers: CY-2004 = 328,376; CY-2005 = 323,577; and CY-2006 = 306,361. 72% of consumers reported this information during CY-2006, 80% and 74% for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 8 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 10 of 285

Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age1 January 1 - December 31, 2006

19 and Under

2%

20 - 29

16%

30 - 39

21%

40 - 49

23%

50 - 59

20%

70

60 - 69 and Over

cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

8%

Arpaio,

No. 15-15211
9%

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Consumer Age Range 19 and Under
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over
Total Reporting Age

CY - 2004

Complaints Percentages1

9,076

3%

66,134

20%

76,757

24%

74,872

23%

57,302

18%

22,484

7%

16,882

5%

323,507

CY - 2005

Complaints Percentages1

8,028

3%

65,343

20%

72,341

23%

74,379

23%

59,094

18%

23,767

7%

16,948

5%

319,900

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages1

2,663

2%

23,372

16%

29,117

21%

33,060

23%

28,868

20%

11,710

8%

12,897

9%

141,687

1Percentages are based on the total number of consumers reporting their age in fraud complaints for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 323,507; CY-2005 = 319,900; and CY-2006 = 141,687. 33% of consumers reported this information during CY-2006, 79% and 73% for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 9 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

D"Inefteinrniteito-nreolaft"edIn" tiCefraintsceeot-:nrc1eel5arn-t1esd5a"2n:1IAn1t,efrr0an5uedt/0pc2roo/m2dup0cl1ati6on,rt IiDs : service, the company initially contacts the consumer via

9959412,

DktEntry:

121-2,

Page

11

of

28I5nternet-Related Fraud Complaints

the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Total Number of Internet-Related Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid
Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

CY
2004 2005 2006

Total No. of Complaints
210,850 197,084 204,881

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid
188,757 160,574 176,847

Percentage of Complaints Reporting
Amount Paid
90% 81% 86%

Amount Paid Reported
$271,345,207 $336,559,907 $590,310,461

Average Amount Paid1
$1,438 $2,096 $3,338

Median Amount Paid2
$215 $342 $500

1Average is based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 188,757; CY-2005 = 160,574; and CY-2006 = 176,847. Eighty-five consumers reported an amount paid of $1 million or more during CY-2006; 15 and 24 consumers for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.
2Median is the middle number in a set of numbers so that half the numbers have values that are greater than the median and
Distribution of Internet-Related Fraud half have values that are lecsiste. dCianlcPuulaetniotenAorfiztohneamve.dAiarpnaeiox,cNluod.e1s5c-o1m52p1la1inatrschwivitehdaomnoAupnrtilp2a8id, 2r0ep1o6rted as $0.
Complaints by Reported Amount Paid
Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Amount Paid $0 $1 - 25 $26 - 50 $51 - 75 $76 - 100 $101 - 250 $251 - 500 $501 - 1,000 $1,001 - 5,000 More than $5,000

CY - 2004

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3

45,402 24%

35,969 22%

75,558 43%

15,374

8%

10,241

6%

6,711

4%

15,297

8%

11,344

7%

7,186

4%

10,192

5%

6,844

4%

4,500

3%

8,540

5%

6,311

4%

4,544

3%

26,922 14%

20,245 13%

14,077

8%

20,915 11%

17,596 11%

14,015

8%

17,231

9%

16,487 10%

15,714

9%

23,457 12%

28,189 18%

26,854

15%

5,427

3%

7,348

5%

7,688

4%

3Percentages are based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 188,757; CY-2005 = 160,574; and CY-2006 = 176,847.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 10 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

D"Inefteinrniteito-nreolaft"edIn" tCiefraintseceto-:nr1ceel5ar-nt1esd5a"2n:1IAn1t,efrr0an5ued/t0pc2roo/m2dup0cl1ati6on,rt IiDs : service, the company initially contacts the consumer via

9959412,

DktEntry:

121-2,

Page

12

of

28I5nternet-Related Fraud Complaints

the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers For Internet-Related Fraud Complaints1 January 1 - December 31, 2006
50%

40%

35%

30%
20% 18%

24%

10% 0%

8%
3%
BankcitedCinaPsuhe/nCteasAhrizonCa hv.eAcrkpaio,

No. 15-15211
Credit

10%
archived on
Money

April 28, 2016
1%
Telephone

Wire

Account Advance

Cards Order

Bill Transfer

Debit

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers For Internet-Related Fraud Complaints Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

CY - 2004

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

Payment Method Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid

Bank Account Debit

6,054

18%

$12,296,656

6,153

19%

$11,181,306

6,643

18%

$21,797,896

Cash/Cash Advance

963

3%

$4,798,767

1,039

3%

$11,164,636

1,168

3%

$7,648,114

Check

3,738

11%

$16,896,006

3,437

10%

$21,804,907

2,851

8%

$60,130,995

Credit Cards

12,104

37%

$10,574,233

12,207

37%

$19,225,091

12,927

35%

$24,765,306

Money Order

4,717

14%

$9,302,494

3,994

12%

$7,839,486

3,659

10%

$16,664,885

Telephone Bill

1,032

3%

$338,338

424

1%

$96,364

429

1%

$259,659

Wire Transfer

4,121

13%

Total Reporting Payment Method

32,729

$50,342,056

5,557

17%

32,811

$41,786,350

8,771

24%

36,448

$91,623,098

1Percentages are based on the total number of Internet-related fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the method of payment: CY-2004 = 32,729; CY-2005 = 32,811; and CY-2006 = 36,448. 18% of the consumers reported this information during CY-2006, 16% and 17% for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 11 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

D"Inefteinrniteito-nreolaft"edIn" tCiefraintseceto-:nr1ceel5ar-nt1esd5a"2n:1IAn1t,efrr0an5ued/t0pc2roo/m2dup0cl1ati6on,rt IiDs : service, the company initially contacts the consumer via

9959412,

DktEntry:

121-2,

Page

13

of

28I5nternet-Related Fraud Complaints

the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age1 January 1 - December 31, 2006

19 and Under

2%

20 - 29

19%

30 - 39

24%

40 - 49

24%

50 - 59

20%

70

60 - 69 and Over

cited

in

Pue3nt% e Arizona

7%
v. Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Consumer Age Range 19 and Under
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over

CY - 2004 Complaints Percentages1

6,325

4%

42,232

24%

45,230

26%

42,182

24%

27,605

16%

8,992

5%

2,602

1%

CY - 2005 Complaints Percentages1

5,503

3%

40,043

25%

39,804

25%

37,573

24%

25,838

16%

8,462

5%

2,590

2%

CY - 2006 Complaints Percentages1

1,498

2%

11,904

19%

14,418

24%

14,966

24%

12,043

20%

4,537

7%

1,802

3%

Total Reporting Age

175,168

159,813

61,168

1Percentages are based on the total number of consumers reporting their age in Internet-related fraud complaints for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 175,168; CY-2005 = 159,813; and CY-2006 = 61,168. 30% of consumers reported this information during CY-2006, 83% and 81% for CY-2004 and CY-2005, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 12 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 14 of 285

How Victims’ Information is Misused1

Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Credit Card Fraud

Loan Fraud

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006 Theft Subtype

CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006

New Accounts

16.6% 15.6% 15.2% Business / Personal /

Existing Account

11.9% 11.4% 10.7%

Student Loan

2.6% 2.6% 2.5%

Unspecified

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

Auto Loan / Lease

1.9% 1.8% 1.7%

Total

28%

26%

25%

Real Estate Loan

1.2% 1.2% 1.3%

Phone or Utilities Fraud

Unspecified Total

0.2% 5%

0.2% 5%

0.2% 5%

Theft Subtype Wireless - New Accounts Utilities - New Accounts Telephone - New Accounts Unauthorized Charges
to Existing Accounts Unspecified Total

Percentages Percentages Percentages

CY-2004
10.0% 4.3%

CY-2005
9.0% 5.2%

CY-2006
7.2% 5.8%

6.0% 5.5% 4.4%

0.7% 0.3% 19%

0.7% 0.4% 18%

0.7% 0.5% 16%

Other Identity Theft
Theft Subtype Uncertain3 Miscellaneous3 Internet / Email Evading the Law Medical

Percentages Percentages Percentages

CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006

ʊ

ʊ

12.0%

ʊ

ʊ

4.6%

1.8% 2.0% 2.2%

2.4% 2.2% 2.1%

1.8% 1.9% 1.9%

Bank Fraud2
Theft Subtype Electronic Fund Transfer Existing Accounts New Accounts Unspecified Total

Apartment or House Rented

0.9%

Insurance

0.4%

Percentages Percentages

CY-2004 CY-2005

6.6% 7.9%

8.5% 7.5%

3.6% 0.1% cit1e8d%in

Puente03..A13r%%izona 18%

Percentages
CY-2006
8.0% v. 35A..r81p%%aio, No.
0.1% 16%

1PSCB5erha-oc1niplu5kder2riru1Sttip1yuetpsaRcpry/ecoOnhritttvaheledFr orIannuvAdepsrtiml 2e8n,t2s016 Magazines Other3 Total

0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%
14.4% 22%

0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2%
17.5% 25%

0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
ʊ 24%

Employment-Related Fraud

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006

Employment-Related Fraud

13%

12%

14%

Attempted Identity Theft

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006

Attempted Identity Theft

6%

6%

6%

Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2004

Fraudulent Tax Return Filed

3.9%

Driver's License Issued / Forged

2.3%

Government Benefits Applied For / Received

1.4%

Other Government Documents Issued / Forged4

0.7%

Social Security Card Issued / Forged4

0.5%

Unspecified

<0.1%

Total

8%

Percentages
CY-2005
4.8% 1.8% 1.5%
0.6%
0.2% <0.1%
9%

Percentages
CY-2006
6.2% 1.4% 1.3%
0.9% ʊ
<0.1% 10%

1Percentages are based on the total number of complaints in the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse for each calendar year: CY-2004 = 246,882; CY-2005 = 255,613; and CY-2006 = 246,035. Note that 18% of identity theft complaints include more than one type of identity theft in CY-2006, 20% in each year for CY-2004 and CY-2005.
2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.
3Theft subtype "Other" was replaced by theft subtypes "Miscellaneous" and "Uncertain" in CY-2006.
4Theft subtype "Social Security Card Issued/Forged" was combined with theft subtype "Other Government Documents Issued/Forged" in CY-2006.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 13 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 15 of 285

Law Enforcement Contact1 January 1 – December 31, 2006

8% of Victims Notified a
Police Department and a Report
Was NOT Taken

62% of Victims Did Not Notify a Police Department

30% of Victims Notified a
Police Department and a Report Was Taken

1Percentages are notified a police

dbeapseacdrittmoendentinht e(P2tu3oe3tan,5lte0n9uA)mr.izb9oe8nr%aofvo.ifdAetrhnpetaitiioyd,etNnhteoift.yt1ct5oh-me1f5pt2lva1ii1cnttiasmrcwshhwiveehredo

on April 28, 2016
victims indicated whether they had contacted the FTC directly reported

law enforcement contact information. Less than one percent of victims who informed the FTC that they had

contacted a police department did not indicate if a report was taken.

Law Enforcement Contact Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

If the victim notified a police department, was a report taken?
Yes No Not Reported Total Who Notified a Police Department Total Who Did Not Notify a Police Department Total Reporting Law Enforcement Contact Information

CY-2004

Complaints Percentages2

73,593

31%

19,096

8%

1,217

<1%

93,906

39%

146,222

61%

240,128

CY-2005

Complaints Percentages2

74,613

30%

21,314

9%

1,207

<1%

97,134

39%

148,832

61%

245,966

CY-2006

Complaints Percentages2

68,760

30%

18,484

8%

1,079

<1%

88,323

38%

145,186

62%

233,509

2Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims indicated whether they had notified a police department: CY-2004 = 240,128; CY-2005 = 245,966; and CY-2006 = 233,509. 98% of identity theft victims who contacted the FTC directly reported law enforcement contact information in CY-2006, as well as in CY-2004 and CY-2005.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 14 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 16 of 285
Identity Theft Complaints by Victim Age1 January 1 – December 31, 2006

30

29%

23% 20%
20

10
5%

13%

10%
6% (65 And Over)

4%

1(P202e5rc,5en3t2a)Ug. en9s4da%ererob1fac8stheitededvoiinncttiPhmeu1seton8wttae-hl2oAn9cruiozmnobtnaeacrtveo.dfAitrdhp3eean0iFot-iT,t3yCN9tohd.ei1rfe5tc-ct1ol5ym2rp1el1pa4oia0nrrttc-esh4dwiv9thheeedriroenavgiAcept.irmil 5s28r0e,-p25o0r91te6d

(60-64)
60 and Over
their age

Identity Theft Complaints by Victim Age Calendar Years 2004 through 2006

Consumer Age Range Under 18 18 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 and Over
60 - 64 65+ Total Reporting Age

CY-2004

Complaints Percentages2

9,595

4%

68,409

29%

57,823

25%

47,110

20%

29,249

12%

22,219

9%

8,031

3%

14,188

6%

234,405

CY-2005

Complaints Percentages2

11,602

5%

70,266

29%

56,523

24%

47,606

20%

30,309

13%

23,034

9%

8,131

3%

14,903

6%

239,340

CY-2006

Complaints Percentages2

10,835

5%

65,734

29%

52,612

23%

44,689

20%

29,367

13%

22,295

10%

7,987

4%

14,308

6%

225,532

2Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims reported their age: CY-2004 = 234,405; CY-2005 = 239,340; and CY-2006 = 225,532. 94% of the victims who contacted the FTC directly reported their age in CY-2006, 95% in each year for CY-2004 and CY-2005.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 15 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 17 of 285

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for Fraud Consumer Complaints1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints Per

100,000

Rank Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

1 Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,023 466.6

2 Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

442 411.5

3 Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

524

396.0

4 Provo-Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,471 356.7

5 Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

399

349.0

6 Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

353 347.6

7 Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

655 346.1

8 Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

655 343.6

9 Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

463 343.3

10 Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

516 335.6

11 Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

526 334.7

12 Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

375 333.4

13 Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

413 331.8

14 Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

367 325.0

15 Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

489 323.0

16 Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

457 320.4

17 Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

328 318.0

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area
Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area EMGPMBoaoaiosticutunthslnedSvisgteitvlrarVloc,ineleuiC,ltCredePOn,sidAotbGyMnui-AnM-rLAegPaitM,ncruoPPraeoepcAotpnororootrltMeietplte,iaoitsAIcanl,NirnrtWoSiazSMptnoaAotatnSelititMsatitratsaoitvtecnipi.tscaorStalAoiltlcAiprataApaotrlianelrsAieatitSoiaarc,tneaaaNltSiAostat.ritce1isaa5tli-cA1a5rle2Aa1r1eaarchived

on

April

28,

5270016 425 509 343 342 857 476 442

26 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

416

316.7 316.4 316.3 312.5 307.9 307.3 299.5 299.3 291.8

27 Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

423 290.6

28 Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

352 286.8

29 Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

644 286.6

30 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

695 283.9

31 Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

433 283.8

32 Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

644 282.2

33 Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

382

274.9

34 Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

374

273.1

35 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

495 272.8

36 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,115

270.0

37 Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

334

269.9

38 Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

904 266.5

39 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

433 265.4

40 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

660 263.3

41 St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

287 261.1

42 Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

297

261.0

43 Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

999 259.8

44 New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

295

256.9

45 Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,157

256.4

46 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area

399 254.3

47 Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

276 251.9

48 Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

488

251.3

49 Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

355 249.2

50 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

669

248.8

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See fraud figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix C1. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 16 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 18 of 285

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for

Identity Theft Consumer Complaints1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Rank Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

1 Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

403 304.5

2 Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

394 283.6

3 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,693 257.2

4 Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

537 244.9

5 Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

358 236.5

6 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

873 234.8

7 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

324 227.3

8 Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

230 214.1

9 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

875 211.9

10 Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

464 211.4

11 Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

257 209.4

12 Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

301 195.7

13 Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

354 185.7

14 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

229 184.7

15 Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

297 184.6

16 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

319 177.2

17 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,533 175.8

18 Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

267

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area SBMFLrtaaooeskscdeCnkerotsrsou,tfoncicCe,,ietlACCesd,,dAAMNCinMMMeAtPreeMoMtturrpoeoeeotpptnlrriooototelalppiintotoAaallSnnriitittzaaSSanontttiaansSStttaiititssacattvtatiiii.cclssaaAtAtililcrcrAApaaelalarreeAiAoaarr,eeNaao.

15-15211

archived

on

April

281,,5127703716 304
1,118 1,245
298 1,386
774

175.0 174.3 173.4 172.6 172.0 169.4 160.1 159.9 155.3

27 Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

183 147.4

28 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,176 147.4

29 Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

603 147.2

30 Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

347 146.4

31 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,536 145.9

32 Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

657 145.6

33 Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

529 145.0

34 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,376 143.9

35 Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

150 142.6

36 Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

325 142.4

37 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,557 140.9

38 Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

478 140.9

39 Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

189 140.7

40 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

351 140.0

41 Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

558 139.0

42 Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

158 138.3

43 Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

314 137.1

44 Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

140 135.7

45 Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

705 134.4

46 Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

301 134.0

47 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,594 133.2

48 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

216 132.4

49 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Are

2,667 132.2

50 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

420 132.0

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See identity theft figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix C2. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 17 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 19 of 285

FRAUD COMPLAINTS BY CONSUMER STATE

IDENTITY THEFT VICTIMS BY STATE

January 1 - December 31, 2006

Rank Consumer State 1 Utah 2 Nevada 3 Washington 4 Colorado 5 Alaska 6 Virginia 7 Hawaii 8 Maryland 9 Oregon 10 Arizona 11 New Hampshire 12 Florida 13 Idaho 14 Montana 15 Maine 16 California 17 Connecticut 18 Delaware 19 Pennsylvania 20 New Jersey 21 Wyoming 22 Georgia 23 Missouri 24 Indiana 25 Ohio 26 New Mexico 27 Wisconsin 28 North Carolina 29 Michigan 30 Vermont 31 Massachusetts 32 Tennessee 33 Minnesota 34 West Virginia 35 South Carolina 36 Nebraska 37 Kansas 38 New York 39 Illinois 40 Texas 41 Rhode Island 42 Kentucky 43 Oklahoma 44 Alabama 45 Louisiana 46 Iowa 47 Arkansas 48 North Dakota 49 Mississippi 50 South Dakota

Complaints

Per 100,000

Population

Complaints

Rank Victim State

178.9

4,563

1 Arizona

169.2

4,222

2 Nevada

163.4

10,451

3 California

161.1

7,657

4 Texas

161.0

1,079

5 Florida

157.5

12,039

6 Colorado

157.1

2,020

7 Georgia

154.1

8,653

8 New York

150.9

5,583

9 Washington

149.6

9,222

10 New Mexico

149.4

1,964

11 Maryland

143.2

25,902

12 Illinois

137.2

2,012

13 Oregon

136.5

1,289

14 New Jersey

135.5

1,791

15 Virginia

134.6

49,070

16 Michigan

134.0

4,695

17 Delaware

131.1

1,119

18 Connecticut

130.6 129.3 127.6 127.5 125.5 124.5 cite11d2243in..11Puente

16,242 11,284
657 11,941 Arizo1n747a,,,328v346.113Arpaio,
2,406

No.

19 Pennsylvania 15-1521222210123arcNMMOhiokviaslresastsdhohaoucCormhnaiuraAsoeplitrntisla28,
24 Indiana 25 Utah 26 Tennessee

2016

121.0

6,724

27 Alabama

116.3

10,300

28 Ohio

115.5

11,665

29 Kansas

115.1

718

30 Rhode Island

113.9

7,333

31 Alaska

113.8

6,871

32 South Carolina

113.4

5,860

33 Minnesota

113.2

2,058

34 Arkansas

112.0

4,841

35 Louisiana

111.3

1,968

36 Mississippi

111.0

3,068

37 Nebraska

109.4

21,129

38 Idaho

108.4

13,908

39 Hawaii

108.2

25,425

40 New Hampshire

108.0

1,153

41 Montana

106.4

4,477

42 Wisconsin

103.7

3,711

43 Wyoming

102.4

4,708

44 Kentucky

92.8

3,981

45 Maine

89.4

2,666

46 West Virginia

86.4

2,428

47 Iowa

85.6

544

48 South Dakota

79.6

2,318

49 North Dakota

79.0

618

50 Vermont

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
147.8 120.0 113.5 110.6 98.3 92.5 86.3 85.2 83.4 82.9 82.9 78.6 76.1 73.3 67.2 67.2 66.7 65.8 64.9 64.9 64.2 63.7 63.0 62.2 61.8 61.3 60.3 59.9 58.8 57.6 57.3 55.7 55.6 54.7 52.6 51.3 49.1 49.0 47.8 46.1 45.9 45.6 42.3 42.0 39.7 39.3 34.9 30.2 29.7 28.5

Complaints 9,113 2,994
41,396 26,006 17,780
4,395 8,084 16,452 5,336 1,621 4,656 10,080 2,815 6,394 5,137 6,784
569 2,305 8,080 5,748 3,753 4,102 2,254 3,928 1,577 3,700 2,774 6,878 1,626
615 384 2,408 2,872 1,537 2,256 1,494 868 718 615 606 434 2,536 218 1,766 525 715 1,041 236 189 178

Note: Per 100,000 unit of population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census population estimates (Table NST-EST2006-01 - Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006). Numbers for the District of Columbia are: Fraud = 1,139 complaints and 195.9 complaints per 100,000 population; Identity Theft = 765 victims and 131.5 victims per 100,000 population.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 18 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 20 of 285

Detailed State Information
(one page per state and the District of Columbia)

Fraud Complaints

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Consumers

Amount Paid Reported
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No.

by Consumers
15-15211 archived on April

28,

2016

Identity Theft Complaints

Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims

Federal Trade Commission

Page 19 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016A, LIDA: 9B95A94M12A, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 21 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,482

Fraud Complaints from Alabama Consumers = 4,708

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Alabama Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

693

15%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

485

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

417

9%

4 Internet Auctions

359

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

207

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Alabama consumers (4,708).

Amount Paid Reported by Alabama Consumers
TC2roAeotp4mvao,el7prrtNl0aeagdo8ien.botaysfmAcoliutaPeT$nbdatoa7imptid,na0aaliRP0dAcu8eoiemps,n7nobost4rueaut4msenAedtedrirzsoon(RnT4at,eho1pvet0.oa7tArlo)4tC.rtiap,no1lOagmn0inouA7ep,mNmlcabooitenn.Prs1tusdo5mf-1feP5rrRa2eur1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmceaihndgpigvel8aaenAo7idnf%amtoCsmnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8niimdd,tso2ou0fn1A$t61pm.aA7$oidv1mue,nwi7rltlaa0iPsgo7aeni.d2

Identity Theft Complaints from Alabama Victims = 2,774

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alabama Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 655 501 486
387 217 141 679 139

Percentage1 24% 18% 18%
14% 8% 5% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,774 victims reporting from Alabama. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Alabama reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 20 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016,AIDL: 9A95S9K41A2, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 22 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,463

Fraud Complaints from Alaska Consumers = 1,079

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Alaska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

286

27%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

109

10%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

104

10%

4 Internet Auctions

92

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

62

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Alaska consumers (1,079).

Amount Paid Reported by Alaska Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el0prrtNl7aeagdo9ien.botaysfmAcoliutaPeT$nsdakto3iaptid,na5acliRP7odAnu7eisemps,u6nobomt3reaute3senAredstdri(zo9on3RnT0ateh)op.vet.oaOtArlotnCrti9apenola3gcmni0oouAp,nmNmslauboitmen.Pr1tesdor5f-r1efP5rpRa2oeu1rerdtc1peeocdanorrattmcanihngpiagvel8maeAo6idonf%mutoCsnnowotuAmphnpaetpriridlPela2oaai8nfimd,t$so21u0.7n1At6mpmiaA$loildv3uioe,nwn8rt.aa4Psg7aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Alaska Victims = 384

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alaska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 99 60
56 43 29 21 103 21

Percentage1 26% 16%
15% 11% 8% 5% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 384 victims reporting from Alaska. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Alaska reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 21 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016A, IDR:I9Z95O94N12A, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 23 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 18,335

Fraud Complaints from Arizona Consumers = 9,222

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Arizona Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

973

11%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

957

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

952

10%

4 Internet Auctions

654

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

370

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Arizona consumers (9,222).

Amount Paid Reported by Arizona Consumers
TC2roAeotp9mvao,el2prrtNl2aeagdo2ien.botaysfmAcoriut$iPeTzn1daoto4inptidnaa,a8liRPcd2Aoue5inempss,no2boutreaum4tsen0Aeedtrdrsizo(on7RnT,at8eho6pvet0.oat)Arlo.7tCrtiapO,no8lagnmn6ioeuA0p,mcNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdom5f-e1frP5rRar2eeu1repdc1poeocarnortrettmcadihngpiagvel8naeAo5idanf%mmtoCsnoowouuAmhnnpettprrpilPelaa2aaii8ndimd,toso2fu0$n1A1t6pmmaA$oiildv1ulei,nwo8rtnaa8P.sg6aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Arizona Victims = 9,113

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arizona Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 3,579 1,404
1,192 1,045
532 372 1,984 381

Percentage1 39% 15%
13% 11% 6% 4% 22% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 9,113 victims reporting from Arizona. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Arizona reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 22 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201A6,RIDK: 9A95N94S1A2, SDktEntry: 121-2, Page 24 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,965

Fraud Complaints from Arkansas Consumers = 2,428

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Arkansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

289

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

224

9%

3 Internet Auctions

219

9%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

211

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

109

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Arkansas consumers (2,428).

Amount Paid Reported by Arkansas Consumers
TC2roAeotp2mvao,el4prrtNl2aeagdo8ien.botaysfmAcoriutkPeT$nadato4niptisd,na8aalsiRP1dAcu4eioemps,n1nobost7reauut0smenAedtderirzoson(RnT2ate,ho1pvet4.oat3Arlo)2tCrt.iap,no1laOgmn4ionuA3p,emNmlcabooiten.nPr1tssdou5fm-1feP5rRar2eur1redec1ppeocaonorrrttmctaiehngpdigvel8aaeAo8nidnf%matoCsmnowouoAmhunpentprrtilPelap2aaia8nimid,dtso2ou0fn1A$t61pm.aA$6oidv2ume,nw2irtlaal4Pisgo6aeni.d2

Identity Theft Complaints from Arkansas Victims = 1,537

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arkansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 375 294
263 148 144
88 404
79

Percentage1 24% 19%
17% 10% 9% 6% 26% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,537 victims reporting from Arkansas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Arkansas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 23 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20C16A, ILD:I9F9O59R41N2,IDAktEntry: 121-2, Page 25 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 90,466

Fraud Complaints from California Consumers = 49,070

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for California Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

5,324

11%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

5,230

11%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

4,707

10%

4 Internet Auctions

3,439

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

2,677

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from California consumers (49,070).

Amount Paid Reported by California Consumers
TC2rmoAeo4tipmlva9oleli,pro0rtNlaena7gdoio0en.brotaymsfmCocoar$iutelPeT1ni.fdato2oiptird1nana,liiRP8adAu1eciemps4onon,bot6resautu8senAem1dtdriezorosnRnT(at4eho1pvet,.oa8tArl4o1tCrt10iapn)o,la.8gmnio1NuAp,0miNmlnaboeitent.ePr1tesdo5nf-1cfP5roRa2neu1resduc1pemocanorerttmcraihsngpirgvel8eaepAo5idnof%mtorCstnoewoudAmhnpaetpnrrilPelaa2amai8nimdo,tsou2un0nt1At6ppmaiaA$doidv2uoe,nwf9rt$aa1P1sg4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from California Victims = 41,396

Identity Theft Types Reported by California Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 10,489 7,223
7,026 6,423 3,350 2,106 10,046 2,325

Percentage1 25% 17%
17% 16% 8% 5% 24% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 41,396 victims reporting from California. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from California reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 24 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201C6O, IDL: O995R9A41D2, ODktEntry: 121-2, Page 26 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 12,052

Fraud Complaints from Colorado Consumers = 7,657

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Colorado Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

818

11%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

723

9%

3 Internet Auctions

682

9%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

640

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

427

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Colorado consumers (7,657).

Amount Paid Reported by Colorado Consumers
TC2roAeotp7mvao,el6prrtNl5aeagdo7ien.botaysfmCcooiut$PleTno3dator7iaptidnda,a2oliRPd4Acue7ioempsn,no8bostreauu9tsmen6Aedtdreirzoson(RnT6ate,ho5pvet3.oat1Arlo)6tCrt.iap,no5laOgmn3ionuA1p,emNmlcabooiten.nPr1tssdou5fm-1feP5rRar2eur1reedc1ppeocaonorrrttmctaiehngpdigvel8aaeAo5nidnf%matoCsmnowoouAmhunpentprrtilPelap2aaia8nimid,dtso2ou0fn1A$t62pm8aA$oimdv5ue,niw7rltlaa0iPosg3nae.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Colorado Victims = 4,395

Identity Theft Types Reported by Colorado Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,006
732 730 624 283 218 1,199 282

Percentage1 23%
17% 17% 14% 6% 5% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 4,395 victims reporting from Colorado. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Colorado reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 25 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/C20O16N, IDN: E99C59T41I2C, DUktTEntry: 121-2, Page 27 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,000

Fraud Complaints from Connecticut Consumers = 4,695

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Connecticut Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

616

13%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

569

12%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

499

11%

4 Internet Auctions

409

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

188

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Connecticut consumers (4,695).

Amount Paid Reported by Connecticut Consumers
TC2roAeotp4mvao,el6prrtNl9aeagdo5ien.botaysfmCcooiutPneT$nndato5eiptid,cna8atliiRP2cdAuu8eiempts,6ncoboto5reaunt9senAsedutdrimzooenRnrTsateho(pvet4.oa,t1Arlo42tCrtiap1,no1la)gm.n2iouA1p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo8idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw4rtaa1Psg4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Connecticut Victims = 2,305

Identity Theft Types Reported by Connecticut Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

706

31%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

442

19%

3 Bank Fraud2

306

13%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

201

9%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

149

6%

6 Loan Fraud

117

5%

Other

581

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

180

8%

1Percentages are based on the 2,305 victims reporting from Connecticut. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Connecticut reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 26 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201D6E, IDL: A99W594A12R, DEktEntry: 121-2, Page 28 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,688

Fraud Complaints from Delaware Consumers = 1,119

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Delaware Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

145

13%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

129

12%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

128

11%

4 Internet Auctions

78

7%

5 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

57

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Delaware consumers (1,119).

Amount Paid Reported by Delaware Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el1prrtNl1aeagdo9ien.botaysfmDcoeiutPleT$nadatwo1iptid,ana7arliReP6dAu9eciempos,6nnobots5reauut4senmAedtdreizrosonRn(T9ateho7pvet7.oa)tArl.otCrti9apnola7gmni7ouAp,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo7idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw8rtaa1Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Delaware Victims = 569

Identity Theft Types Reported by Delaware Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 165 90
80 80 43 32 138 47

Percentage1 29% 16%
14% 14% 8% 6% 24% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 569 victims reporting from Delaware. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 20% of victims from Delaware reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 27 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211D, 0I5S/0T2/R20I1C6,TID:O99F59C41O2,LDUktEMntrBy:I1A21-2, Page 29 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,904

Fraud Complaints from District of Columbia Consumers = 1,139

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for District of Columbia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

174

15%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

127

11%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

116

10%

4 Foreign Money Offers

60

5%

5 Internet Auctions

55

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from District of Columbia consumers (1,139).
Amount Paid Reported by District of Columbia Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el1prrtNl3aeagdo9ien.botaysfmDcoiiutsPeTntrda$toiicp8tidntaa2loiRP2dfAue,Ciemp4snoo3botlr9euautsmenAedtbdriizoaonRncToatehonpvets.oautArlomtCrti9apenolra5gsmni7o(uAp,9mNml5ab7oite)n..Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo4idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaAoi$dvu8enwr5taa9Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from District of Columbia Victims = 765

Identity Theft Types Reported by District of Columbia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

230

30%

2 Bank Fraud2

159

21%

3 Phone or Utilities Fraud

123

16%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

109

14%

5 Loan Fraud

59

8%

6 Employment-Related Fraud

38

5%

Other

193

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

35

5%

1Percentages are based on the 765 victims reporting from the District of Columbia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 22% of victims from the District of Columbia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 28 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016F, ILD:O99R59I4D12A, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 30 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 43,682

Fraud Complaints from Florida Consumers = 25,902

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Florida Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,875

11%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

2,601

10%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

2,559

10%

4 Internet Auctions

2,343

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

1,396

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Florida consumers (25,902).

Amount Paid Reported by Florida Consumers
TC2rooAeo2rtpmvam5oel,pro9rtNlarea0egdoi.2en.botaysfmFcoliout$PeTrn6idatod1iptaidna,a9cliRPod8Auen1iempss,uno1bomtreau0tseen8Aerdtsdriz(o2on2RnT,ate2hop3vet.oa9tArl)2o.tCrt2iapnFo,la2gomniou3uAp,r9mtNmleaboeitenn.Pr1tcsdo5of-n1fsP5ruRa2emu1redc1peerocasnorrtrtmcaeihnpgpigvoel8aerAo6itdnef%mdtoCsnoawonuAmhnapetpmrrilPeloa2aaui8nimnd,ttso2pu0an1iAt6dpmoaA$foidv2u$e1,nw7rtmaa8Psg7iaelliido2n

Identity Theft Complaints from Florida Victims = 17,780

Identity Theft Types Reported by Florida Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 4,614
3,071 2,591 2,248 1,652
968 4,654 1,138

Percentage1 26%
17% 15% 13% 9% 5% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 17,780 victims reporting from Florida. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Florida reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 29 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016G, IED:O99R59G41I2A, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 31 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 20,025

Fraud Complaints from Georgia Consumers = 11,941

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Georgia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,479

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,171

10%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,149

10%

4 Internet Auctions

810

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

707

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Georgia consumers (11,941).

Amount Paid Reported by Georgia Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1topmva1roele,pr9r.tNlaea4gdoi1en.botaysfmGcoeiut$PoeTn2rdatog5iptiidnaa,a7liRPcd2Aoue8inempss,no5boutreamu5tsen9Aeedtrdrsizo(on1RnT0ate,ho3pvet1.oat6Arl1o)tCrt0.iapno,laF3gmnioo1uAup,6mrNmlacboitoen.Pnr1tssdo5uf-m1fP5reRa2erus1redc1preeocanporrottmcairhntgpiegvel8daeAo6idanf%nmtoCsnaowomuAmhnopetpurrinlPelat2aaip8nimda,tiso2du0on1Aft6pm$aA1$oidv2mue,nwi4rltlaa9iPsgo4aenidor2

Identity Theft Complaints from Georgia Victims = 8,084

Identity Theft Types Reported by Georgia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,930
1,471 1,329 1,182
711 444 2,009 455

Percentage1 24%
18% 16% 15% 9% 5% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 8,084 victims reporting from Georgia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Georgia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 30 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016,HIDA: 9W959A41I2I, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 32 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,635

Fraud Complaints from Hawaii Consumers = 2,020

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Hawaii Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

292

14%

2 Internet Auctions

224

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

207

10%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

198

10%

5 Foreign Money Offers

111

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Hawaii consumers (2,020).

Amount Paid Reported by Hawaii Consumers
TC2rmoAeotop2mvaro,ele0prr.tNl2aeagdo0ien.botaysfmHcoaiut$PweTn1datao1iiptidina,ac0liRPod0Auen3iempss,uno8bomtreau4tseen4Aerdtsdriz(o1on,RnT7ate4hop2vet.oa)t.Arlo1tCrtTiap,nho7lagrmn4ieouA2ep,mNmlcaoboitnen.Prs1tusdo5mf-1feP5rrRa2seu1rerdc1peepocanoorrtrtmcatihengpidgvel8aeaAo6idnnf%mtoaCsnmowouAomhnupetpnrrilPtela2paai8naimd,itdso2u0on1fAt6$pm1aA$omidv6uie,nlw3rltiaa1oPsgn7aeoidr 2

Identity Theft Complaints from Hawaii Victims = 615

Identity Theft Types Reported by Hawaii Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Loan Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 232 98
95 36 35 18 155 41

Percentage1 38% 16%
15% 6% 6% 3% 25% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 615 victims reporting from Hawaii. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Hawaii reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 31 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, IIDD: 9A95H94O12, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 33 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,730

Fraud Complaints from Idaho Consumers = 2,012

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Idaho Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

205

10%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

191

9%

3 Internet Auctions

179

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

165

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

69

3%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Idaho consumers (2,012).

Amount Paid Reported by Idaho Consumers
TC2roAeotp2mvao,el0prrtNl1aeagdo2ien.botaysfmIcdoiautPeTh$ndaoto3ipticd,na5aoliRP9ndAsu2euiemps,m0nobot7reeautr8sensAedt(dri1zo,o7nRn7Tat7eho)pvet..oatArlo1tCrtiap,no7lagmn7iouA7p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo8idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv2ue,nw0rtaa2Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Idaho Victims = 718

Identity Theft Types Reported by Idaho Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 145
129 116
94 60 38 216 31

Percentage1 20%
18% 16% 13% 8% 5% 30% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 718 victims reporting from Idaho. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Idaho reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 32 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016I, LIDL: 9I9N59O41I2S, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 34 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 23,988

Fraud Complaints from Illinois Consumers = 13,908

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Illinois Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,621

12%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,513

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,354

10%

4 Internet Auctions

974

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

606

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Illinois consumers (13,908).

Amount Paid Reported by Illinois Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1tpomva3orele,pr9r.tNlaea0gdoi8en.botaysfmIcloliuit$PneTn3odatoi2iptsidna,ac8liRPod6Aune8iempssu,no8bomtreau1tesen5Aerdtsdriz(o1on2RnT,at1ehop0vet3.oat)Arl1o.tCrt2iapFno,la1ogmniou0uAp,r3mNmlcabooitenn.Prs1tusdo5mf-1feP5rrRa2seu1rerdc1peepocanoorrtrtmcatihengpidgvel8aeaAo7idnnf%mtoaCsnmowouAomhnupetpnrrilPtela2paai8naimd,itdso2u0on1fAt6$pm1aA$omidv2uie,nlw7rltiaa1oPsgn6aeoidr 2

Identity Theft Complaints from Illinois Victims = 10,080

Identity Theft Types Reported by Illinois Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,536 1,879
1,435 1,360 1,069
592 2,215
630

Percentage1 25% 19%
14% 13% 11% 6% 22% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 10,080 victims reporting from Illinois. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Illinois reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 33 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016,IIND:D99I5A94N1A2, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 35 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 11,791

Fraud Complaints from Indiana Consumers = 7,863

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Indiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,233

16%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

752

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

688

9%

4 Internet Auctions

477

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

373

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Indiana consumers (7,863).

Amount Paid Reported by Indiana Consumers
TC2rmoAeotop7mvaro,ele8prr.tNl6aeagdo3ien.botaysfmIcnoidut$PeTina2daton0iptidana,a9lciRPdo7Auen1iempss,nou1botrmeau3tsene8Aedrtdrsiz(oo6nRn,T8ateh5opve3t.oa)t.Arlo6tCrtFiap,noo8lagmun5ioruA3p,mcNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdom5f-e1frP5rsRa2eur1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmcaeihndgpigvel8aaenAo7idnf%amtoCsmnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8nimidd,tso2ou0fn1A$t61pmaAm$oidv3uile,nlw0irtoaa6nPsg0aeoird2

Identity Theft Complaints from Indiana Victims = 3,928

Identity Theft Types Reported by Indiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 900 809
607 423 415 185 987 240

Percentage1 23% 21%
15% 11% 11% 5% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,928 victims reporting from Indiana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Indiana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 34 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, IDI:O99W59A412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 36 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,707

Fraud Complaints from Iowa Consumers = 2,666

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Iowa Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

369

14%

2 Internet Auctions

321

12%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

271

10%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

185

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

121

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Iowa consumers (2,666).

Amount Paid Reported by Iowa Consumers
TC2rmoAeotpo2mvaor,ele6prr.tNl6aeagdo6ien.botaysfmIcooiwutPeT$nadato8ciptid,noa5anliRP7dsAu0euiempms,7noboet7rearuts8senAe(dtdr2iz,o3on4RnT3ateh)op.vet.oaTtArlow2tCrtiap,ono3lagmcn4ioouA3p,nmNmlsabuoitemn.Pr1tesdo5rfs-1frP5reRa2epu1reodc1prteoceanordrttmcaiahngpnigvel8aaeAo8imdnf%mtooCsunowonuAmthnppetprarilPeliad2aai8niomd,tfso2$u01n1Atm6pmiaAl$loiidv3uoe,nnw6rtoaa5Prsg8aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Iowa Victims = 1,041

Identity Theft Types Reported by Iowa Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 295
158 158 123
92 51 259 73

Percentage1 28%
15% 15% 12% 9% 5% 25% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 1,041 victims reporting from Iowa. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Iowa reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 35 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016,KIDA: 9N95S94A1S2, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 37 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 4,694

Fraud Complaints from Kansas Consumers = 3,068

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Kansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

333

11%

2 Internet Auctions

326

11%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

284

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

276

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

148

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Kansas consumers (3,068).

Amount Paid Reported by Kansas Consumers
TC2roAeotp3mvao,el0prrtNl6aeagdo8ien.botaysfmKcoaiutPneT$nsdato5aiptisd,na8acliRP5odAu9eniempss,0unobomt8reaut0seenAerdtsdriz(o2on,RnT6ate6hop2vet.oa)t.Arlo2tCrtOiap,no6lnagmen6iouA2cp,moNmlanboitsen.uPr1tmsdo5ef-1rfP5rrRae2eup1redoc1preocatnoerrtdtmcaihnagpingvel8aeaAo7idnmf%mtoCsonouwouAnmhntpetpprrilaPelai2adai8nimdo,tsof2u0$n11At6mpmaAi$olildv2uioe,nw2rntaa.0Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Kansas Victims = 1,626

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 400
315 273 173 118
83 419 104

Percentage1 25%
19% 17% 11% 7% 5% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 1,626 victims reporting from Kansas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Kansas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 36 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201K6,EIDN: 9T9U59C41K2, YDktEntry: 121-2, Page 38 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 6,243

Fraud Complaints from Kentucky Consumers = 4,477

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Kentucky Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

641

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

547

12%

3 Internet Auctions

419

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

399

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

189

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Kentucky consumers (4,477).

Amount Paid Reported by Kentucky Consumers
TC2rmoAeotpo4mvaor,ele4prr.tNl7aeagdo7ien.botaysfmKcoeiut$PneTn1tdatou2iptcidna,ka1liRyPd3Auec3iempos,non0botrseau4utsen2mAedtdreizroosnRn(T3ateho,p8vet.oa8tArl6o3t)Crti.ap,no8laFgmn8ioouA6p,umNmlrabociteno.Prn1tsdos5uf-1mfP5rRea2eru1resdc1preoceanoprrttmocaihrngptiegvel8adeAo7idnaf%mntoCsnoawoumAmhnpoetprurilPelna2taai8npimd,taso2idu0n1oAt6fpm$aA$1oidv3ume,nw1ritlaa2lPisgo2aenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Kentucky Victims = 1,766

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kentucky Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 478 335
302 153 139 102 473
96

Percentage1 27% 19%
17% 9% 8% 6% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,766 victims reporting from Kentucky. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 20% of victims from Kentucky reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 37 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201L6,OIDU: 9I9S5I9A41N2,ADktEntry: 121-2, Page 39 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 6,237

Fraud Complaints from Louisiana Consumers = 3,981

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Louisiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

499

13%

2 Internet Auctions

455

11%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

406

10%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

339

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

211

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Louisiana consumers (3,981).

Amount Paid Reported by Louisiana Consumers
TC2rmoAeotpo3mvaor,ele9prr.tNl8aeagdo1ien.botaysfmLcooiut$uPeTni1datso0iiptidana,an4liRPad4Auec9iempos,non7botrseau7utsen6AmedtdreizroosnRn(Ta3teho,pv4et.oa9tArl1o3tC)rtiap.,no4lagTmn9iowuA1p,moNmlabociteon.Prn1tsdos5uf-1mfP5rRea2eru1resdc1preoceanoprrttmocaihrngptiegvel8adeAo8idnaf%mntoCsnoawoumAmhnpoetprurilPelna2taai8npimd,taso2idu0n1oAt6fpm$aA$1oidv2ume,nw9ritlaa9lPisgo3aenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Louisiana Victims = 2,256

Identity Theft Types Reported by Louisiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Loan Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 530 406 401
348 113 109 521 122

Percentage1 23% 18% 18%
15% 5% 5% 23% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,256 victims reporting from Louisiana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Louisiana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 38 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, IMD: A99I5N94E12, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 40 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,316

Fraud Complaints from Maine Consumers = 1,791

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Maine Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

351

20%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

177

10%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

170

9%

4 Internet Auctions

152

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

104

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Maine consumers (1,791).

Amount Paid Reported by Maine Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el7prrtNl9aeagdo1ien.botaysfmMcoiuatPeTi$nndato1eiptid,nac5aloiRP4dnAu1esiempus,7nombot6reauet8sernAesdtdr(iz1oo,n5RnT4ateho1pvet).oa.tArlo1tCrtiap,no5lagmn4iouA1p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw0rtaa0Psg0aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Maine Victims = 525

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maine Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Loan Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 180 77
75 35 27 12 140 45

Percentage1 34% 15%
14% 7% 5% 2% 27% 9%

1Percentages are based on the 525 victims reporting from Maine. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Maine reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 39 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20M16,AIDR: 9Y95L94A12N, DDktEntry: 121-2, Page 41 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 13,309

Fraud Complaints from Maryland Consumers = 8,653

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Maryland Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,001

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

998

12%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

896

10%

4 Internet Auctions

715

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

463

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Maryland consumers (8,653).

Amount Paid Reported by Maryland Consumers
TC2roAeotp8mvao,el6prrtNl5aeagdo3ien.botaysfmMcoiuat$PeTrn1ydatol0iptaidna,na4liRdPd8Auec7iempos,non0botrseau1utsen3mAedtdreizrosonRn(T7ateho,p4vet.oa6tArl2o7t)Crti.ap,no4lagmn6iouA2p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw4rtaa0Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Maryland Victims = 4,656

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maryland Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,411 794
785 344 309 297 1,144 358

Percentage1 30% 17%
17% 7% 7% 6% 25% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 4,656 victims reporting from Maryland. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Maryland reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 40 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/0M2/2A01S6,SIDA:C99H59U41S2E, DTktTEnStry: 121-2, Page 42 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 11,435

Fraud Complaints from Massachusetts Consumers = 7,333

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Massachusetts Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

869

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

801

11%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

739

10%

4 Internet Auctions

504

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

346

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Massachusetts consumers (7,333).
Amount Paid Reported by Massachusetts Consumers
TC2roAeotp7mvao,el3prrtNl3aeagdo3ien.botaysfmMcoiuatPeT$sndsato8aiptid,cna1ahliRP6udAsu4eieemps,t2notbost0reautc6senoAedtndriszouonmRnTateehorpvets.oat(Arlo66tCrt,iap2,no2la1gmn1i5ouA)5p,.mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo5idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw3rtaa1Psg4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Massachusetts Victims = 4,102

Identity Theft Types Reported by Massachusetts Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,335

33%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

673

16%

3 Bank Fraud2

561

14%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

341

8%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

306

7%

6 Loan Fraud

185

5%

Other

1,006

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

325

8%

1Percentages are based on the 4,102 victims reporting from Massachusetts. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Massachusetts reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 41 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201M6, IIDC: 9H95I9G41A2,NDktEntry: 121-2, Page 43 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 18,449

Fraud Complaints from Michigan Consumers = 11,665

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Michigan Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,690

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,164

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

993

9%

4 Internet Auctions

762

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

514

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Michigan consumers (11,665).

Amount Paid Reported by Michigan Consumers
TC2rooAeo1rtpmvam1oel,pro6rtNlarea6egdoi.5en.botaysfmMcoiuit$PceTnh8datoi6igptidna,aa2lniRPd0Auec3iempos,nno3botsreau3utsenm1AedtdreizrosonRn(T1ateho0pvet,0.oat6Arl1ot5Crt0iap)no,.la0gmniTo6uAp,h5mNmlraeboiteen.Prc1tsodo5nf-1sfPu5rRam2eu1reedc1presocanorrrtetmcaiphngpoigvel8raetAo6iednfd%mtoCsanonwouAmhanpmetprriloPelau2aain8nimdt,tso2pu0ani1dAt6pmoafA$oi$dv8u1e,nw5rmtaa6Pisg5laeliiodn2

Identity Theft Complaints from Michigan Victims = 6,784

Identity Theft Types Reported by Michigan Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,893 1,519
971 668 459 353 1,486 550

Percentage1 28% 22%
14% 10% 7% 5% 22% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 6,784 victims reporting from Michigan. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Michigan reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 42 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20M16,IIND:N99E59S4O12T, DAktEntry: 121-2, Page 44 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 8,732

Fraud Complaints from Minnesota Consumers = 5,860

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Minnesota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

731

12%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

595

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

532

9%

4 Internet Auctions

510

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

267

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Minnesota consumers (5,860).

Amount Paid Reported by Minnesota Consumers
TC2roAeotp5mvao,el8prrtNl6aeagdo0ien.botaysfmMcoiuitPneT$nndato9eiptid,sna4aoliRP3tdaAu0eicemps,o6nobont6reaust1suenAemdtdriezoronsRnT(ate5hopv,et0.oat4Arlo05tCrti)ap,n.o0lagmn4iouA0p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw8rtaa7Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Minnesota Victims = 2,872

Identity Theft Types Reported by Minnesota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 792
685 426 277 221 141 667 184

Percentage1 28%
24% 15% 10% 8% 5% 23% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,872 victims reporting from Minnesota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Minnesota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 43 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20M16,IIDS:S9I9S59S4I1P2,PDIktEntry: 121-2, Page 45 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,812

Fraud Complaints from Mississippi Consumers = 2,318

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Mississippi Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

332

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

216

9%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

173

7%

4 Internet Auctions

154

7%

5 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

122

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Mississippi consumers (2,318).

Amount Paid Reported by Mississippi Consumers
TC2roAeotp2mvao,el3prrtNl1aeagdo8ien.botaysfmMcoiuitPseT$nsdatoi3siptid,sna3ailpiRP6dpAu7eiiemps,c3noobot9renaut2ssenAeudtdrmizoeonrRnsTate(ho2pvet,.oa0tArlo22tCrt4iap,n)o0la.gmn2iouA4p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo7idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw6rtaa6Psg4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Mississippi Victims = 1,494

Identity Theft Types Reported by Mississippi Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 327 267
265 256 102
76 334
92

Percentage1 22% 18%
18% 17% 7% 5% 22% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 1,494 victims reporting from Mississippi. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Mississippi reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 44 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016M, IDIS: 9S9O59U41R2, IDktEntry: 121-2, Page 46 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 11,084

Fraud Complaints from Missouri Consumers = 7,331

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Missouri Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

964

13%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

789

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

688

9%

4 Internet Auctions

596

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

374

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Missouri consumers (7,331).

Amount Paid Reported by Missouri Consumers
TC2roAeotp7mvao,el3prrtNl3aeagdo1ien.botaysfmMcoiuit$PseTns1datoo3iptuidna,ar1liiRPd0Acueo0iempsn,no0sbotrueau7tmsen7Aedtedrrizsoon(Rn6Tat,eho4pvet6.oa8tArlo)6t.Crtiap,no4Olagmn6inouA8ep,mNmlcabooitenn.Prs1tusdo5mf-1feP5rrRa2eru1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmceaihndgpigvel8aaenAo8idnfa%mtomCsnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8niimdd,tso2ou0fn1$At62pm.5aA$oidv2mue,nwi0rltlaa2iPsog5ane.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Missouri Victims = 3,753

Identity Theft Types Reported by Missouri Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 962 762
688 273 267 205 937 274

Percentage1 26% 20%
18% 7% 7% 5% 25% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 3,753 victims reporting from Missouri. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Missouri reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 45 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201M6, IOD:N99T59A41N2,ADktEntry: 121-2, Page 47 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,723

Fraud Complaints from Montana Consumers = 1,289

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Montana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

231

18%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

127

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

121

9%

4 Internet Auctions

104

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

62

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Montana consumers (1,289).

Amount Paid Reported by Montana Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el2prrtNl8aeagdo9ien.botaysfmMcoiuotPeT$nndatto2aiptid,nna2aaliRP5dAcu5eoiemps,n8nosbot3rueautm7senAedetdrrizsoon(Rn1Tat,eho1pvet0.oa0tArlo)1t.Crtiap,no1lagmn0iouA0p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo5idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv2ue,nw0rtaa5Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Montana Victims = 434

Identity Theft Types Reported by Montana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 139
64 61 28 24 20 116 33

Percentage1 32%
15% 14% 6% 6% 5% 27% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 434 victims reporting from Montana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Montana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 46 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201N6,EIDB: 9R95A9S41K2,ADktEntry: 121-2, Page 48 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,836

Fraud Complaints from Nebraska Consumers = 1,968

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Nebraska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

264

13%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

199

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

183

9%

4 Internet Auctions

176

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

115

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Nebraska consumers (1,968).

Amount Paid Reported by Nebraska Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el9prrtNl6aeagdo8ien.botaysfmNcoeiutPbeT$nrdato2aiptsid,nak3alaiRP7dAuc1eioemps,9nnobost0reauut7semnAedtdreizrosonRn(T1ateho,6pvet5.oat3Arlo1)tCrt.iap,no6lagmn5iouA3p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo4idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw4rtaa3Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Nebraska Victims = 868

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nebraska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 223
151 124 110 73 30 234
51

Percentage1 26%
17% 14% 13% 8% 3% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 868 victims reporting from Nebraska. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Nebraska reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 47 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016,NIDE: 9V9A59D41A2, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 49 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,216

Fraud Complaints from Nevada Consumers = 4,222

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Nevada Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

495

12%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

406

10%

3 Internet Auctions

404

10%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

397

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

240

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Nevada consumers (4,222).

Amount Paid Reported by Nevada Consumers
TC2rmoAeotop4mvaro,ele2prr.tNl2aeagdo2ien.botaysfmNcoeiut$PveTn2adatod0iptidana,a3lciRPd4oAuen1iempss,nou8botrmeau7tsene2Aedrtdrsizo(o3nRn,T6ateho8pvet5.oa)tArl.o3tCrtTiap,no6lwagmn8ioouA5p,mcNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdom5f-e1frP5rsRa2eur1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmceaihndgpigvel8aaenAo7idnf%amtoCsmnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8nimidd,tso2ou0fn1A$t61pmaAm$oidv5uile,nlw5irtoaa2nPsg0aeoird2

Identity Theft Complaints from Nevada Victims = 2,994

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nevada Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 704
567 463 459 230 182 797 185

Percentage1 24%
19% 15% 15% 8% 6% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,994 victims reporting from Nevada. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 20% of victims from Nevada reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 48 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/0N2/2E0W16, IHD:A99M59P41S2H, DIkRtEnEtry: 121-2, Page 50 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,570

Fraud Complaints from New Hampshire Consumers = 1,964

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Hampshire Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

238

12%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

226

12%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

225

11%

4 Internet Auctions

174

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

130

7%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Hampshire consumers (1,964).
Amount Paid Reported by New Hampshire Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el9prrtNl6aeagdo4ien.botaysfmNcoeiutPweT$ndato2Hiptid,na7aalmiRP5dAu1epiempss,9hnoboit1reraute0senAecdtdroiznoosnRnuTatmehopveet.oartsArlo1tC(rtiap1,no6la,g6mn8io8uA3p,3mNml)a.boiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw6rtaa3Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from New Hampshire Victims = 606

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Hampshire Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

206

34%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

87

14%

3 Bank Fraud2

76

13%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

40

7%

5 Loan Fraud

29

5%

6 Employment-Related Fraud

25

4%

Other

182

30%

Attempted Identity Theft

51

8%

1Percentages are based on the 606 victims reporting from New Hampshire. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from New Hampshire reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 49 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20N16E, WID: 9J9E59R41S2E, DYktEntry: 121-2, Page 51 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 17,678

Fraud Complaints from New Jersey Consumers = 11,284

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Jersey Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,364

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,320

12%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,194

11%

4 Internet Auctions

1,058

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

610

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Jersey consumers (11,284).

Amount Paid Reported by New Jersey Consumers
TC2rooAeo1rtpmvma1oel,pro2rtNlarea8egdoi.4en.botaysfmNcoeiut$PweTn3datoJ5iptiedna,ar9lsiRPde1Auey8iempsc,no9bootreaun7tssen2AeudtdrmizoeonrRnTsateho(p1vet.oa0tArl,1o4tCrt02iapno,2la4gm)nio.2uAp,2mSNmlaibxoiten.cPr1tosdo5nf-s1fuP5rmRa2eu1reedcr1pseocanrorrettmcpaihnogpigvrel9ateeAo2idndf%mtoaCsnonwouAamhnmpetprroilPelau2aain8nimtd,tpso2au0in1dAt6opmfaA$o$idv3u1e,nwm4rtaa4iPsgl6laeioidn2

Identity Theft Complaints from New Jersey Victims = 6,394

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Jersey Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,964 987
855 637 604 354 1,543 474

Percentage1 31% 15%
13% 10% 9% 6% 24% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 6,394 victims reporting from New Jersey. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from New Jersey reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 50 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2N01E6,WID: M995E94X12I,CDOktEntry: 121-2, Page 52 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 4,027

Fraud Complaints from New Mexico Consumers = 2,406

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Mexico Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

247

10%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

222

9%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

191

8%

4 Internet Auctions

125

5%

5 Foreign Money Offers

110

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Mexico consumers (2,406).

Amount Paid Reported by New Mexico Consumers
TC2rmoAeotip2mlvaol,eli4prortNl0aenagdo.6ien.botaysfmNcoeiutPweT$ndato3Miptid,na5aeliRP9xdAiu3eciemps,o8noboct8reauot1sennAedstdruizmoonRneTrateshopvet(.oa2tArl,o02tCrti9ap,no0l8agm)n9io.uA8p,mONmlabnoiteen.Pr1tcsdo5of-n1fsP5ruRa2emu1redec1preocanrorrettmcpaihnogpigvrel8ateeAo7idndf%mtoaCsnonwouAamhnmpetprroilPelau2aain8nimtd,tpso2au0in1dAt6opmfaA$o$idv1u1e,n.w72rtaa1Psg3aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from New Mexico Victims = 1,621

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Mexico Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

334

21%

2 Employment-Related Fraud

311

19%

3 Bank Fraud2

280

17%

4 Phone or Utilities Fraud

253

16%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

141

9%

6 Loan Fraud

96

6%

Other

436

27%

Attempted Identity Theft

78

5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,621 victims reporting from New Mexico. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from New Mexico reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 51 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201N6,EIDW: 99Y59O41R2,KDktEntry: 121-2, Page 53 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 37,581

Fraud Complaints from New York Consumers = 21,129

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New York Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,763

13%

2 Internet Auctions

2,335

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

2,157

10%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

2,108

10%

5 Foreign Money Offers

1,019

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New York consumers (21,129).

Amount Paid Reported by New York Consumers
TC2rmoAeo2tipmlva1oleli,pro1rtNlaena2gdoio9en.brotaymsfmNocoreiute$PweTn.4datoY1iptidna,oa7liRrPdk9Aue8icempso,no5bontreau8stsuen8AemdtdriezoronsRnT(ate1hopv8et.oa,t4Arl1o4tCrt8i0apno,l)a4g.mnio4uASp,0meNmlavboiteen.nPr1tscdo5of-1nfP5rsRau2eum1redc1peeocransorrttmcraiehngppigvel8oaerAo7idtnfe%mtodCsnowaouAnmhnpaetprmrilPelao2aaiu8nimdn,tsot2up0na1Ait6dpmoaA$oifdv2u$e,nw12rtaa6Psg7aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from New York Victims = 16,452

Identity Theft Types Reported by New York Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 5,370 3,019 1,980
1,961 1,168
977 3,516 1,165

Percentage1 33% 18% 12%
12% 7% 6% 21% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 16,452 victims reporting from New York. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from New York reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 52 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/N02O/20R16T, IHD: 9C9A59R41O2, LDkItNEnAtry: 121-2, Page 54 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 16,048

Fraud Complaints from North Carolina Consumers = 10,300

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for North Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,095

11%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,009

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

998

10%

4 Internet Auctions

593

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

498

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from North Carolina consumers (10,300).
Amount Paid Reported by North Carolina Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1tipmlva0oleli,pro3rtNlaena0gdoio0en.brotaymsfmNocoroiute$PerTn.t3dahto7iptidCna,a7laiRPdr2Auoe1iemplsi,non0botraeau0tscen1AeodtdrnizsoounRnmTateheopvrets.oatArl(o88tCrtiap,,n9o9lag9mn9io0uA0p,)m.NmlaboSiten.iPrx1tsdo5cf-o1fnP5rsRa2euu1remdc1peeocanrorsrttmcairhnegpipgvel8aoeAo7irdntf%metoCsdnowoauAmnhnpetparrimlPela2aoai8nimud,tnso2tu0pn1aAt6idpmaA$ooifdv4ue$,nw1r1taa9Psg6aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from North Carolina Victims = 5,748

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,271

22%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

949

17%

3 Bank Fraud2

838

15%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

685

12%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

616

11%

6 Loan Fraud

295

5%

Other

1,494

26%

Attempted Identity Theft

406

7%

1Percentages are based on the 5,748 victims reporting from North Carolina. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from North Carolina reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 53 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02N/2O01R6, TIDH: 99D59A41K2,ODkTtEAntry: 121-2, Page 55 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 733

Fraud Complaints from North Dakota Consumers = 544

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for North Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

61

11%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

60

11%

3 Internet Auctions

55

10%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

39

7%

5 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

29

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from North Dakota consumers (544).

Amount Paid Reported by North Dakota Consumers
TC2roAeotpmva5oelpr4rtNlae4agdoien.botaysfmNcooiutPerT$ntdahto1iptid,Dna0alaiRP1dkAu5eoiemps,t4naobot6rceaut0osenAendtdrsiuzoomnRnTeaterhospvet.oa(t4Arlo6tCrti48apnol)a6g.mni8ouAp,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv2ue,nw1rtaa7Psg0aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from North Dakota Victims = 189

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

68

36%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

28

15%

3 Bank Fraud2

18

10%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

14

7%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

11

6%

6 Loan Fraud

10

5%

Other

37

20%

Attempted Identity Theft

25

13%

1Percentages are based on the 189 victims reporting from North Dakota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from North Dakota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 54 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, IDO: 9H95I9O412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 56 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 21,119

Fraud Complaints from Ohio Consumers = 14,241

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Ohio Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,746

12%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,627

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,318

9%

4 Internet Auctions

1,192

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

528

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Ohio consumers (14,241).

Amount Paid Reported by Ohio Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1tpomva4orele,pr2r.tNlaea4gdoi1en.botaysfmOcohiut$PeiTno3dato6ciptidnoa,a0nliRPds9Aueu9iempms,no3boetrearu6tssen2Ae(dtdr1iz2oo,n4RnT5ateh0opve)t..oatArl1oFtCrt2iiapvno,lae4gmnio5cuAp,o0mNmlnabsoituen.Prm1tsdo5ef-r1sfP5rrRa2eeu1rpedc1poerocantorerttmcdaihngpaigvenl8aeAo7iadnfm%mtoCsonowuouAnmhnptetprprilPelaa2iaaid8nimd,otso2fu0$n11At6mpmaA$ioildv2luieo,nw9rntaa0Posg0raeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Ohio Victims = 6,878

Identity Theft Types Reported by Ohio Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,739 1,661
1,062 580 382 284
1,770 422

Percentage1 25% 24%
15% 8% 6% 4% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 6,878 victims reporting from Ohio. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Ohio reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 55 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/20O16K, IDL: A99H59O41M2, DAktEntry: 121-2, Page 57 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 5,965

Fraud Complaints from Oklahoma Consumers = 3,711

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Oklahoma Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

516

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

381

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

356

10%

4 Internet Auctions

262

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

171

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Oklahoma consumers (3,711).

Amount Paid Reported by Oklahoma Consumers
TC2roAeotp3mvao,el7prrtNl1aeagdo1ien.botaysfmOcokiutPelT$nadato5hiptoid,na4amliRP0daAu2eicemps,o8nobont1reaust9suenAemdtdriezorosnRnT(ate3hopv,et1.oa6tArlo13tCrti)ap,n.o1lagmn6iOouA1p,nmNmelabociten.oPr1ntsdo5suf-1mfP5rRae2eur1redrc1peeocpanororttmcraihtngpeigvdel8aeAo5aidnnf%mtoCsanomwouAmohnpuetprrnilPelta2aaip8nimad,tiso2du0on1fAt6$pm1aA$oimdv1ue,niw7lrtlaai0oPsg9nae.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Oklahoma Victims = 2,254

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oklahoma Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 513
433 417 236 161 137 609 126

Percentage1 23%
19% 19% 10% 7% 6% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,254 victims reporting from Oklahoma. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Oklahoma reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 56 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016O, IDR: 9E9G59O412N, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 58 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 8,398

Fraud Complaints from Oregon Consumers = 5,583

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Oregon Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

564

10%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

563

10%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

447

8%

4 Internet Auctions

433

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

299

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Oregon consumers (5,583).

Amount Paid Reported by Oregon Consumers
TC2rmoAeotop5mvaro,ele5prr.tNl8aeagdo3ien.botaysfmOcoriutePeT$ngdato9oiptind,na4alciRP2doAu4eniemps,s0noubot5rmeaut4seneAedrtdrsiz(oo4nRn,T7ateh4opve4t.oa)t.Arlo4tCrtTiap,no7lwagmn4ioouA4p,cmNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdmo5f-e1frP5rsRa2eru1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmceaihndgpigvel8aaenAo5idnfa%mtomCsnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8niimdd,tso2ou0fn1$At61pmamA$oidv1iulel,nwi9rotaa8nPsg7aoerid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Oregon Victims = 2,815

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oregon Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 731
614 413 251 205 122 738 188

Percentage1 26%
22% 15% 9% 7% 4% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 2,815 victims reporting from Oregon. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Oregon reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 57 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02P/2E01N6,NIDS: 9Y95L9V41A2, NDkItAEntry: 121-2, Page 59 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 24,322

Fraud Complaints from Pennsylvania Consumers = 16,242

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Pennsylvania Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

2,318

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,936

12%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,437

9%

4 Internet Auctions

1,298

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

682

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Pennsylvania consumers (16,242).
Amount Paid Reported by Pennsylvania Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1tipmlva6oleli,pro2rtNlaena4gdoio2en.brotaymsfmPocoeriutne$PeTn.n2datos5iyptidna,la7vliRPda6Auen8iempisa,no4botcreau6otsen3AnedtsdriuzomonRneTatrehospvet(.oa1tArl1o3tCrt3,iap9no,la89gmni2o8uA)p,2.mNmlaFboitoen.Pru1tsrdo5fc-1ofP5rnRa2esu1uredc1pmeocaenorrrttmcsaihnrgpiegvel8paeAoo6idnfr%mttoCsenodwouAamhnpnetprrailPelma2aai8onimd,utso2nu0t n1pAt6apmidaA$oiodv1ufe,nw$8rt1aa4Psg3aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Pennsylvania Victims = 8,080

Identity Theft Types Reported by Pennsylvania Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

2,467

31%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

1,367

17%

3 Bank Fraud2

1,143

14%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

806

10%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

594

7%

6 Loan Fraud

420

5%

Other

2,029

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

597

7%

1Percentages are based on the 8,080 victims reporting from Pennsylvania. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Pennsylvania reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 58 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/R20H16O, IDD: E995I9S4L12A, DNktDEntry: 121-2, Page 60 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,768

Fraud Complaints from Rhode Island Consumers = 1,153

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Rhode Island Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Auctions

160

14%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

144

12%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

101

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

97

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

61

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Rhode Island consumers (1,153).

Amount Paid Reported by Rhode Island Consumers
TC2roAeotp1mvao,el1prrtNl5aeagdo3ien.botaysfmRcohiutPoeT$nddato1eiptid,na1IasliRP1ldAau1eniemps,d3nobotc5reauot0senAnedtsdriuzomonRneTatrehospvet(.oa9tArlo9tCrt7i9apn)ola9.gmni7ouAp,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw1rtaa1Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Rhode Island Victims = 615

Identity Theft Types Reported by Rhode Island Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

194

32%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

112

18%

3 Employment-Related Fraud

72

12%

4 Bank Fraud2

69

11%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

52

8%

6 Loan Fraud

29

5%

Other

156

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

35

6%

1Percentages are based on the 615 victims reporting from Rhode Island. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Rhode Island reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 59 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/0S2O/20U16T, HID: C99A59R41O2,LDkItNEnAtry: 121-2, Page 61 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,249

Fraud Complaints from South Carolina Consumers = 4,841

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for South Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

634

13%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

457

9%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

455

9%

4 Internet Auctions

348

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

246

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from South Carolina consumers (4,841).
Amount Paid Reported by South Carolina Consumers
TC2rmoAeotip4mlvaol,eli8prortNl4aenagdo.1ien.botaysfmScooiut$uPeTnt1dahto2iptidCna,a6laiRPdr1Auoe9iemplsi,non9botraeau0tscen0AeodtdrnizsoounRnmTatehoepvrets.oatArl(o44tCrtiap,,n1o1lag7mn7io6uA6p,)m.NmlaboOiten.nPr1tesdo5fc-1ofP5rnRa2esu1uredc1pmeocaenorrrttmcarihnegpipgvel8aoeAo6irdntf%metoCsdnowoauAmnhnpeatprrimlPela2aoai8niumd,tnso2tu0pn1aAt6idpmaA$ooifdv3u$e,nw0r6taa.25Psg2aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from South Carolina Victims = 2,408

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

588

24%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

435

18%

3 Bank Fraud2

393

16%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

294

12%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

221

9%

6 Loan Fraud

147

6%

Other

597

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

120

5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,408 victims reporting from South Carolina. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from South Carolina reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 60 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02S/2O01U6,TIDH: 99D59A41K2,ODTktEAntry: 121-2, Page 62 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 854

Fraud Complaints from South Dakota Consumers = 618

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for South Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

104

17%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

71

11%

3 Internet Auctions

56

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

39

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

27

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from South Dakota consumers (618).

Amount Paid Reported by South Dakota Consumers
TC2roAeotpmva6oelpr1rtNlae8agdoien.botaysfmScooiutuPeT$ntdahto1iptid,Dna9alaiRP8dkAu3eoiemps,t1naobot4rceaut2osenAendtdrsiuzoomnRnTeaterhospvet.oa(t5Arlo1tCrti58apnol)a1g.mni8ouAOp,mNmlnabeoiten.cPr1tosdo5nf-s1ufP5rmRa2eue1redrc1perocaenorrpttmcaoihngrpitgvele8aedAo4idnfa%mtonCsnowaouAmmhnpeotprruilPelan2aait8nimpd,taso2iu0dn1Aot6fpm$aA$o1idv3ume,nw8rtiaal2lPsgi8oaenid. 2

Identity Theft Complaints from South Dakota Victims = 236

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

73

31%

2 Bank Fraud2

41

17%

3 Employment-Related Fraud

19

8%

4 Phone or Utilities Fraud

18

8%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

16

7%

6 Loan Fraud

12

5%

Other

63

27%

Attempted Identity Theft

23

10%

1Percentages are based on the 236 victims reporting from South Dakota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from South Dakota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 61 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201T6E, IDN: N99E59S4S12E, DEktEntry: 121-2, Page 63 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 10,571

Fraud Complaints from Tennessee Consumers = 6,871

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Tennessee Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

860

13%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

745

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

636

9%

4 Internet Auctions

605

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

332

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Tennessee consumers (6,871).

Amount Paid Reported by Tennessee Consumers
TC2roAeotp6mvao,el8prrtNl7aeagdo1ien.botaysfmTcoeiutnPeT$nndato8eiptisd,na5saleiRP4deAu2eicemps,o6nobont2reaust0suenAemdtdriezorosnRnT(ate5hop,vet9.oa1tArlo15tCrti)ap,n.o9lagmn1OiouA1p,nmNemlabociten.oPr1ntsdo5suf-1mfP5rRae2eur1redrc1peeocpanororttmcraihtngpeigvdel8aeAo6aidnnf%mtoCsanomwouAmohnpuetprrnilPelta2aaip8nimad,tiso2du0on1fAt6$pm1aA$oimdv1ue,niw4lrtlaai4oPsg5nae.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Tennessee Victims = 3,700

Identity Theft Types Reported by Tennessee Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 965
753 570 442 261 195 915 207

Percentage1 26%
20% 15% 12% 7% 5% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,700 victims reporting from Tennessee. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 19% of victims from Tennessee reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 62 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ITD:E99X59A4S12, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 64 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 51,431

Fraud Complaints from Texas Consumers = 25,425

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Texas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,520

10%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

2,331

9%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

2,328

9%

4 Internet Auctions

1,617

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

1,274

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Texas consumers (25,425).

Amount Paid Reported by Texas Consumers
TC2rmoAeo2tpomva5roele,pr4r.tNlaea2gdoi5en.botaysfmTcoeiut$xPeTna6datos1iptidcna,ao1liRPnd2Aues9iuemps,mno8botreeau3trsen9Asedtdr(i2zo2on,RnT0ate9hop2vet.oa)t.Arl2otCrtN2iapno,lia0ngmnioe9uAp,2cmNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdmo5f-e1frP5rsRa2eru1reedc1ppeocoanorrrtttmceaihndgpigvel8aaenAo7idnfa%mtomCsnowoouAmuhnpnetprtrilPelpa2aaai8niimdd,tso2ou0fn1$At61pmamA$oidv2iulel,nwi7rotaa6nPsg7aoerid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Texas Victims = 26,006

Identity Theft Types Reported by Texas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 6,508 5,111
4,725 3,893 2,412 1,333 5,603 1,172

Percentage1 25% 20%
18% 15% 9% 5% 22% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 26,006 victims reporting from Texas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Texas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 63 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, IDU: 9T9A59H412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 65 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 6,140

Fraud Complaints from Utah Consumers = 4,563

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Utah Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

538

12%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

363

8%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

348

8%

4 Internet Auctions

282

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

168

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Utah consumers (4,563).

Amount Paid Reported by Utah Consumers
TC2roAeotp4mvao,el5prrtNl6aeagdo3ien.botaysfmUcotiutaPeT$nhdato7ciptid,ona4anliRP2dsAuu8eiempms,2noboet2rerauts8senAe(dtd3ri,z8oo6nRnT6ate)ho.pvet.oatArlo3tCrtiap,no8lagmn6iouA6p,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo5idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw9rtaa2Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Utah Victims = 1,577

Identity Theft Types Reported by Utah Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 396
280 252 210 111
88 413
96

Percentage1 25%
18% 16% 13% 7% 6% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 1,577 victims reporting from Utah. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Utah reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 64 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201V6, EIDR: 9M959O41N2,TDktEntry: 121-2, Page 66 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 896

Fraud Complaints from Vermont Consumers = 718

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Vermont Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

79

11%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

75

10%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

65

9%

4 Internet Auctions

56

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

40

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Vermont consumers (718).

Amount Paid Reported by Vermont Consumers
TC2roAeotpmva7oelpr1rtNlae8agdoien.botaysfmVcoeiutPreTnmda$toiop4tidnana6ltiRP7dAcue,oiem3psnno4sbotru8eautmsenAedetdrrizsoon(Rn6Tat1ehop4vet).oa.tArlotCrti6apnola1gmni4ouAp,mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaAoi$dvu7enwr6taa1Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Vermont Victims = 178

Identity Theft Types Reported by Vermont Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Loan Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 65
25 23
9 8 4 58 14

Percentage1 37%
14% 13% 5% 4% 2% 33% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 178 victims reporting from Vermont. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 20% of victims from Vermont reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 65 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016V, IIDR: 9G95I9N41I2A, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 67 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 17,176

Fraud Complaints from Virginia Consumers = 12,039

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,404

12%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,390

12%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,272

11%

4 Internet Auctions

829

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

647

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Virginia consumers (12,039).

Amount Paid Reported by Virginia Consumers
TC2rmoAeo1tpomva2orele,pr0r.tNlaea3gdoi9en.botaysfmVcoiiutr$PeTgn2daiton4iptidina,aa7liRPcd4Auoe4iempns,nso4boutreau1mtsen1Aeedtdrriszoo(n1RnT0ateho,p3vet7.oat6Arl1ot)Crt0i.apno,laT3gmniow7uAp,6moNmlabcoitoen.Prn1tssdo5uf-m1fP5reRa2eru1sredc1preeocanporrtotmcairhngtpiegvel8daeAo6idanf%mntoCsnaowomuAmhnopetpurrilnPelat2aai8pnimd,atsoi2du0n1oAt6f pm$aA1$oidv2ume,nwi3rltala8iPsgo5aenidor2

Identity Theft Complaints from Virginia Victims = 5,137

Identity Theft Types Reported by Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,497
858 850 382 345 269 1,355 351

Percentage1 29%
17% 17% 7% 7% 5% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 5,137 victims reporting from Virginia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Virginia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 66 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2W016A, SIDH: 9I9N59G41T2,ODkNtEntry: 121-2, Page 68 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 15,787

Fraud Complaints from Washington Consumers = 10,451

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Washington Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,346

13%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

1,067

10%

3 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

927

9%

4 Internet Auctions

631

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

535

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Washington consumers (10,451).

Amount Paid Reported by Washington Consumers
TC2rooAeo1rtpmvam0oel,pro4rtNlarea5egdoi.1en.botaysfmWcoiuat$PeTns2dahto0iiptidnna,ag7liRPtd5Aouen8iemps,noc9botoreau6tnsen0AsedtudrimzooenRnrTsateho(pvet8.oa,t8Arlo8t1Crtiap,2no8la)gm.n1iouA2Fp,mNmlivaboeiten.Prc1tosdo5nf-1sfuP5rRam2eu1reedc1presocanorrrtetmcaiphngpoigvel8raetAo4eidndf%mtoCsanonwouAmahnpmetprriolPelau2aain8nimdt,tsop2ua0in1dAt6opmfaA$oi$dv2u1e,nw3rmtaa5Pisgl6laeiiodn2

Identity Theft Complaints from Washington Victims = 5,336

Identity Theft Types Reported by Washington Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,424

27%

2 Bank Fraud2

1,139

21%

3 Phone or Utilities Fraud

822

15%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

531

10%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

339

6%

6 Loan Fraud

216

4%

Other

1,322

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

420

8%

1Percentages are based on the 5,336 victims reporting from Washington. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Washington reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 67 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02W/20E16S, ITD: V99I5R94G12I, NDkItAEntry: 121-2, Page 69 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,773

Fraud Complaints from West Virginia Consumers = 2,058

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for West Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

234

11%

2 Internet Auctions

184

9%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

181

9%

4 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

176

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

92

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from West Virginia consumers (2,058).
Amount Paid Reported by West Virginia Consumers
TC2roAeotp2mvao,el0prrtNl5aeagdo8ien.botaysfmWcoiuetPeT$nsdatto2iVptid,na4ailriRP6dgAu9eiinemps,i0noabot7reauct4soenAedntdrsizuoomnRnTeatehorpvset.oa(tArl1o1t,Crt7iap,no76lagm4n6io)uA4p,.mNmlaboiten.Pr1tsdo5f-1fP5rRa2eu1redc1peocanorrttmcaihngpigvel8aeAo6idnf%mtoCsnowouAmhnpetprrilPela2aai8nimd,tso2u0n1At6pmaA$oidv1ue,nw4rtaa0Psg0aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from West Virginia Victims = 715

Identity Theft Types Reported by West Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

202

28%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

135

19%

3 Bank Fraud2

105

15%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

58

8%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

47

7%

6 Loan Fraud

43

6%

Other

196

27%

Attempted Identity Theft

38

5%

1Percentages are based on the 715 victims reporting from West Virginia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from West Virginia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 68 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201W6, IIDS:C99O59N41S2I, NDktEntry: 121-2, Page 70 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 9,260

Fraud Complaints from Wisconsin Consumers = 6,724

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Wisconsin Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

736

11%

2 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

714

11%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

675

10%

4 Internet Auctions

520

8%

5 Foreign Money Offers

387

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Wisconsin consumers (6,724).

Amount Paid Reported by Wisconsin Consumers
TC2rmoAeotpo6mvaro,ele7prr.tNl2aeagdo4ien.botaysfmWcoiuit$PesTnc1datoo8iptidnna,as8liRPidn9Aue2icempso,no3bontreau4stsuen7AedmtdrizeoronsRnT(ate5hopv,et8.oat9Arlo45tCrti)ap,n.o8lagmn9iSouA4ip,xmNmlacboitoen.nPr1tssdo5uf-m1fP5reRa2reus1redc1preeocapnorrottmcarihntgpeigveld8aeAo8iadnfn%mtoCsanowmouAmhnopeutprrinlPelat2aaip8nimad,tiso2du0on1Aft6$pm1aA$oidmv3ue,nwi2rltlaa0iPosg5naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Wisconsin Victims = 2,536

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wisconsin Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 673 452
376 273 228 111 621 221

Percentage1 27% 18%
15% 11% 9% 4% 24% 9%

1Percentages are based on the 2,536 victims reporting from Wisconsin. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Wisconsin reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 69 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/201W6, IYD:O99M594I1N2,GDktEntry: 121-2, Page 71 of 285 Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures January 1 - December 31, 2006
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 875

Fraud Complaints from Wyoming Consumers = 657

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Wyoming Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

78

12%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

72

11%

3 Internet Services and Computer Complaints

58

9%

4 Internet Auctions

58

9%

5 Foreign Money Offers

27

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Wyoming consumers (657).

Amount Paid Reported by Wyoming Consumers
TC2roAeotpmva6oelpr5rtNlae7agdoien.botaysfmWcoiuytPeT$nodato5miptid,nia6anliRP8gdAu4eciemps,o4nonbot4rseautu3senAmedtdreizroosnRnT(at5eho3pvet8.oat)Arlo.tCrti5apOnola3gnmni8oeuAp,mcNmloaboniten.sPru1tsdom5f-e1frP5rRar2eue1repdc1poeocarnortrettmcadihngpiagvel8naeAo2idanf%mmtoCsnoowouuAmhnnpettprriplPelaa2aaii8ndimd,toso2fu0$n1A3t6.pm7$aAomi1dvu0ienwl,rlt5iaaoP6sgnae6.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Wyoming Victims = 218

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wyoming Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 47
35 34 24 15 14 54 16

Percentage1 22%
16% 16% 11% 7% 6% 25% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 218 victims reporting from Wyoming. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 11% of victims from Wyoming reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 70 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 72 of 285
Appendix A1: The Sentinel Network
www.consumer.gov/ idtheft
The Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse was launched in November 1999 and is the sole national repository of consumer complaints about identity theft. The Clearinghouse provides specific investigative material for law enforcement and broader reports that provide insight to both private and public sector partners on ways to reduce the incidence of identity theft. Information in the Clearinghouse is available to law enforcement members via Consumer Sentinel, the secure, password-protected government Web site. This access enables law enforcers to readily spot identity theft problems in their own backyards, and to coordinate with other law enforcement officers where the data reveals common schemes or perpetrators.

www.econsumer.gov ccinoofmnoEsrpucmlomaanietnsirutoscmnoineanrbfo.iogrduodetvenrccwoteonaissnrcueictmeserpd-eecoainrotnePmpddurmeotinotneteetrcAhActreeipizo.rconTinhlahia2nvle0.leaAm0nlr1lpugactleiootosi,ulNgoinnoaft.gtrm1hiu5eea-us1rll5tatp2ihn1nua1dabtatlsbiriochcehnaliWvoraeenldegIcobnrntotosAesiprtstnreh-ilebe2pto8rI,fronr2dvat0eeui1rdr6dnee,as-atcignooedmnnaemelnreaChrlaocnnecseumer Protection and Enforcement Network, contact information for consumer protection authorities in those countries, and an online complaint form. All information is available in English, French, German, Korean, Polish, and Spanish. Using the existing Consumer Sentinel Network, the incoming complaints are shared through the government Web site with participating consumer protection law enforcers from 19 nations.

www.consumer.gov/ military

Military Sentinel, which was established in September 2002, is a project of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Defense to identify and target consumer protection issues that affect members of the United States Armed Forces and their families. Military Sentinel also provides a gateway to consumer education materials covering a wide range of consumer protection issues, such as auto leasing, identity theft, and work-at-home scams. Members of the United States Armed Forces can enter complaints directly into Consumer Sentinel. Through Consumer Sentinel, the secure password-protected government Web site, this information is used by law enforcement agencies, members of the JAG staff, and others in the Department of Defense to help protect armed services members and their families from consumer protection-related problems.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 71 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 73 of 285

Appendix A2: Sentinel Data Contributors1 January 1 – December 31, 2006

U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(Fraud) 4%

Better Business Bureaus (Fraud) 3%

Other Organizations2

(IDT & Fraud) 3%

FTC "877 ID THEFT"

(IDT)

27%

Canada's PhoneBusters
(Fraud) 5%
Internet Crime Complaint Center
(Fraud) 30%

cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

FTC Web Complaints
(Fraud) 11%

FTC "877 FTC HELP"
(Fraud) 9%

FTC Web Complaints
(IDT) 9%

1Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel complaints (674,354) received between January 1 and December 31, 2006. The type of complaints provided by the organization is indicated in parentheses.
2For a list of other organizations contributing to Sentinel, see Appendix A3.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 72 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 74 of 285
Appendix A3: Other Sentinel Data Contributors January 1 – December 31, 2006

Federal Agencies

Local Police/Sheriff Departments

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

California, Inglewood Police Department

Federal Bureau of Investigation

California, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

U.S. Department of Justice

Colorado, Steamboat Springs Police Department

U.S. Social Security Administration

Connecticut, Danbury Police Department

Florida, Clearwater Police Department

Attorneys General Offices

Illinois, Broadview Police Department

District of Columbia

Indiana, DeMotte Police Department

Kentucky

Indiana, Fulton County Sheriff’s Department

New York

Iowa, Clinton Police Department

Nevada

Massachusetts, Northampton Police Department

North Dakota

Michigan, Buena Vista Township Police Department

Texas

Michigan, Genesee County Sheriff’s Department

Vermont

Michigan, South Haven Police Department

Other State & Local Agencies
California, Stanislaus County District Attorney Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs NLMooourntihtsaiaCnnaaarOoDlfifenipcaaeDrotmefpeCanorttnmosfuenJmutesortficPcJietrueodstteiinccetPiuoennte Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-1NNNN5eeee2wwww11YMJJaeerorrcessrhxeekiivyy,ce,,oNdHH,eoCaawnnrlAaoroirpvsvkrioielsPnr2Po8TTo,loio2lciww0ec1ennD6ssDhehepiipppaarPPtrmootmlleiicceneent tDDeeppaarrttmmeenntt Ohio, Bexley Police Department Ohio, Olmsted Falls Police Department Ohio, Streetsboro Police Department Ohio, Upper Arlington Police Department

Tennessee Regulatory Authority

Pennsylvania, Colonial Regional Police Department

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions

Pennsylvania, Doylestown Township Police Department

Pennsylvania State Police

Pennsylvania, Lower Frederick Police Department

Pennsylvania, York Police Department

Others

Wisconsin, Altoona Police Department

Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs

Texas, Dalhart Police Department

Identity Theft Assistance Center

Virginia, Goochland County Sheriff’s Office

National Fraud Information Center

Ohio University Police Department

Xerox Corporation

Federal Trade Commission

Page 73 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 75 of 285
Appendix B: Sentinel Complaint Categories
Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair Offers: The promise of a loan that requires you to pay a fee first; worthless credit card loss protection and insurance programs; the promise that accurate negative information can be removed from your credit file for a fee; etc. Business Opportunities and Work-at-Home Plans: Medical billing scams; misleading franchise and Internet-based business opportunities; wealth building plans that don’t make good on their promises; etc. Debt Management/Credit Counseling: Unfulfilled promises by credit counseling organizations to provide free services, send payments to creditors in a timely manner, or reduce interest rates on credit card debt, eliminate late and over-the-limit Employ Agencies/Job Counsel/Overseas Work: Unfulfilled, misleading and deceptive job placement opportunities, offers and services by employment-service firms for up-front fees. Foreign Money Offers: Letters or e-mails offering the "opportunity" to share in a percentage of millions of dollars that a self-proclaimed government official is trying to transfer illegally out of a foreign country in return for money, bank account numbers, or other identifying information from the victim. Grants: Scholarships/Educational & Non-Educational: Fraudulent practices by businesses or individuals marketing financial aid assistance services to consumers; including grants to assist in the financing of postsecondary education, noneducational government grants for business and/or home repairs, and other complaints against: student loan processors, debt collectors collecting on defaulted student loans, and diploma mills and other unaccredited educational institutions. HlIcItIoinndrmeestetsadeeenrrlilptttynnihrcteeowyattdCrauTdAySac;hreautfesrecca:vfctoitoiil:rocuuFenrsnrseWesta:rtunavohdunieNcudmdnelioesbsnsCcn;eo-ltridoom,)memsmteelpoicpovoiaisntcuetelleoeltredneymtaahircdnpmoseyiP:pfnirturtgergoeTe,lfoeprnarooavtrtierumidaaadlsnAdte;etrenooisdzictfrnosefeyft;enlphooirahvtesruiemevfvrta.rfe.ayrlpAtotechriomporlfaassnoiipogImanan,obasstNoeoloadfruio.nnsdt1rdeett5thhnve-ea1tSiqist5fepui2yoarri1vipronne1imdcgcauleeoercincsrntPhtrsfsoeirov;ovcrretvaimtdinelioudfaornemaetnribrotpsAsilnrlepoio(rtf("tciylhlIeti2Shaskd8neePeu,rsrs2vaye"a0ido)slc1v;e;ue6;ersddre;iitStefiscfsotuiaeccnrdiuysa;lcltlsryaeSucepeckncpasulno;ercfmiHetdyleIieVnnnltgiusvt;meeasrwnbyt eekIiriSnigtohPsar;t account; undisclosed Web site charges; problems with computer software and equipment purchases; and spyware. Investments: Promises of riches that don’t pan out in day trading; oil and gas leases; gold and gems; FCC licenses; etc. Magazines and Buyers Clubs: Pitches for "free," "pre-paid," or "special" magazine subscription deals and offers for club memberships that claim to help you save money when buying a particular product or service (CDs, books, etc.). Multi-Level Marketing/Pyramids/Chain Letters: Network plans that offer commissions on the sale of goods by you and distributors you recruit. Office Supplies and Services: Fraudulent or deceptive offers for toner, copier paper, maintenance supplies, equipment maintenance contracts; classified advertising and yellow page invoice scams; website cramming schemes; etc. Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries: Promotions for "free" prizes for a fee; foreign lotteries and sweepstakes offered through the phone, fax, e-mail or mail; etc. Shop-At-Home/Catalog Sales: Problems, such as undisclosed costs, failure to deliver on time, non-delivery, and refusal to honor a guarantee, with purchases made via the Internet (not including auction sales), telephone, or mail. Telephone Services: Charges for calls to "toll-free" numbers; unauthorized charges such as charges for calls consumers didn’t make; unauthorized switching of consumers’ phone service provider; misleading pre-paid phone card offers; etc. Travel, Vacation and Timeshare Plans: Deceptive offers for "free" or low-cost vacations; cut-rate student travel packages; misleading timeshare offers; etc. "Other" complaint categories are: Real estate, charitable solicitations, unsolicited faxes, unauthorized debits, DVD Video/film, VoIP services, modeling agencies/services, dating services, property/inheritance tracers, green card application services, video games, water purifiers, living trusts, and viaticals.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 74 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 76 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

198

Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

202

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,445

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

258

Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

442

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,316

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,437

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

248

Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

375

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,526

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

245

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

305

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

637

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

295

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

333

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

904

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

202

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area AAAAtuutllbgaauunnsrttaintca--S-OCRapinitceydhl,yimkNSaoJ,pnMArdinLeCgtMrsoo-uMpentotracylorii,itpteaeGotndtlAaiSti,-antSGnaPCtAiSsutMtaMeictneiaesttltretrioAcoApaproleroilaAzliitotaraennnaaSSvtta.attiAisstrtipiccaaailolA,ArNreeoaa.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2051262 748 225 375
7,738 566 233 790

Augusta-Waterville, ME Micropolitan Statistical Area

228

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,752

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,185

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,806

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

291

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

327

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

906

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

236

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

221

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

414

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

415

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

299

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

219

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

541

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,470

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

336

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

427

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

259

Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

156

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

860

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,356

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

857

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

221

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

511

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,483

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
124.9 198.5 205.8 158.5 411.5 155.7 183.9 168.5 333.4 195.7 192.2 129.2 184.7 225.9 191.9 266.5 179.7 245.0 193.2 218.1 215.8 164.3 210.6 193.0 153.3 189.0 194.9 161.3 182.1 196.4 143.0 124.3 169.7 201.9 108.0 230.3 222.3 151.6 217.1 135.8 222.7 240.4 163.9 146.0 163.8 143.6 307.3 202.6 213.7 164.2

Rank 339 134 114 251 2 257 172 223 12 138 144 332 170 77 145 38 188 53 140 89 95 234 105 141 263 156 139 246 180 137 293 341 217 123 365 70 84 267 92 310 83 57 237 283 239 290 23 121 101 236

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 75 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 77 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

192

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,437

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

241

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area

267

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

701

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

880

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

290

Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

463

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

295

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

395

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

925

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,474

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

404

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

826

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

11,013

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

453

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,872

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area CCCCoooolllloluuemmrgaebbdiioSaat,,SaSMptiCroOinnMg-MBse,ertryCtoraOopnpo,MolTiltieXacttanirtnMoeSpSdteoattailtrniiottsiaptsPintociulcaSiealttanlaAnttAiersSerteAatiacartaiizlsotAincraaelavA. rAearpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2014360 246
3,178 277 285
1,312 259 990

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

458

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,782

Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

423

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

397

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

191

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,197

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

323

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

215

Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area

363

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

463

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,441

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

154

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

106

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

958

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,611

Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

682

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,345

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

311

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area

254

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

333

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

353

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,157

East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area

226

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

476

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

219

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
51.6 124.5 174.1 130.6 170.6 171.1 118.6 343.3 137.1 128.3 158.5 167.8 223.3 168.7 117.3 212.7 139.5 180.0 229.4 148.7 226.4 150.4 227.7 171.2 145.7 163.9 164.2 290.6 96.9 189.1 143.8 248.4 198.8 231.7 123.3 170.4 104.3 95.5 200.1 197.9 133.2 119.0 230.0 183.1 120.7 347.6 256.4 202.7 299.5 143.0

Rank 378 340 203 329 215 213 350
9 308 333 250 225 81 221 352 104 304 187 72 279 75 271 74 212 285 238 235 27 373 155 289 51 133 67 343 216 369 374 130 135 318 349 71 178 348 6 45 120 24 292

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 76 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 78 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

178

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

663

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

276

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

336

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

606

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

615

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area

224

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

496

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

201

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

131

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

638

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

514

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

352

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

696

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

265

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

199

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

669

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gainesville, Gainesville, Glens Falls,

NGFLYAMMMeeettrtrrooopppooollilciitttaitaanenndSSStitatnaattitPisisstutiticieccanaallltAeAArArreeearaaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

201367 495 744
1,099 167 569 509 182

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

157

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

284

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,439

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,023

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

447

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,035

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

301

Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

978

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

524

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

695

Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

232

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

416

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,198

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

172

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,049

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

228

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

653

Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area

281

Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area

399

Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

446

Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area

293

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,419

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

195

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,766

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

431

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
116.8 93.0 251.9 175.2 214.6 185.5 174.3 142.3 110.7 105.5 183.5 131.5 286.8 156.8 134.3 139.8 248.8 130.1 272.8 185.0 126.8 161.7 238.0 316.3 142.2 137.4 223.2 187.5 466.6 151.3 155.0 187.2 167.5 207.3 283.9 220.6 291.8 230.7 154.6 173.0 175.4 185.1 172.4 254.3 176.7 224.6 157.7 98.1 111.3 150.2

Rank 354 375 47 200 98 166 202 296 360 368 174 325 28 255 316 303 50 330 35 169 335 244 61 20 297 307 82 160 1 270 259 162 226 111 30 85 26 69 260 207 199 168 210 46 195 79 252 372 359 272

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 77 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 79 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

541

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

268

Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,870

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

243

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

202

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

263

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

533

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

167

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,070

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

261

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

201

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

337

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

355

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

400

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

281

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

135

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

239

Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area KKKKiieinnlnlggensseeptnwoo-nTirc,te-kNBm-RYrpiilscMetho-Flela-toBnrrodtrpi-HsPotoloaisolt,accdnoTi,t,NeTSWdtX-aVAtiniMAsMtPeiMctueraeoetlrtpnoArootperlpoeitolaAailtnriatizanSontSanSttaaitsativttsii.ctsiaAtcilcarApal laAreAioraer,eaNa o.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2012368 668 193
2,873 373 528 492 396

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,186

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

222

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

198

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

425

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

415

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

256

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

570

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

972

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

939

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

660

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

125

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

352

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,947

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

165

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

206

Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area

312

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

413

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

256

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

795

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

168

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area

366

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

799

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

245

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

323

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

17,383

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
149.3 242.7 177.0 176.9 201.7 161.4 103.0 151.6 168.9 169.2 146.4 215.3 249.2 213.5 189.2 121.0 145.5 172.2 209.2 180.1 149.2 173.1 152.6 163.6 217.8 183.3 219.3 153.9 234.1 168.6 131.5 316.7 185.4 192.7 144.8 57.0 189.2 178.5 160.5 186.4 182.1 331.8 239.2 187.2 157.2 131.6 125.5 223.4 161.2 134.5

Rank 276 56 193 194 125 245 371 268 220 218 281 97 49 102 153 347 286 211 109 186 277 206 264 242 90 176 87 262 66 222 324 18 167 143 288 377 154 190 248 165 181 13 59 161 254 323 336 80 247 314

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 78 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 80 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Louisville, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,989

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

302

Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

199

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

472

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

644

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

382

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

959

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

971

Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area

203

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

259

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

305

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

454

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,362

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

334

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

109

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,656

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

343

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area MMMooonnnrtrgoooee,m, MLeArIyM,MAeeLttrrooMppoeotllriitotaapnnocSlSititettaaadtntiissiSnttiitccaPaatilulsAeAtincrretaeealaAArreizaona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2011965 2,083 4,206
447 954 257 433 540

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

297

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

216

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

342

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

201

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

264

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

415

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

524

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

491

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,301

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

295

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,695

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,427

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

22,680

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

433

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

650

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

594

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

219

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

156

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,023

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

151

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,718

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

644

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,110

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,479

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

345

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
165.6 117.2 157.4 203.0 282.2 274.9 180.3 243.6 189.6 202.2 46.3 235.2 108.9 140.9 103.4 142.8 312.5 162.0 137.4 135.0 111.6 191.4 150.1 283.8 152.0 261.0 167.4 307.9 170.7 151.4 190.7 396.0 165.5 164.8 256.9 200.4 108.1 121.2 265.4 243.9 203.9 217.4 125.3 214.3 135.7 150.1 286.6 138.1 186.9 217.0

Rank 229 353 253 119 32 33 185 55 152 122 379 65 362 300 370 294 21 243 306 313 358 147 274 31 266 42 227 22 214 269 148 3 230 232 44 129 364 346 39 54 116 91 337 99 311 273 29 305 164 93

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 79 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 81 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area

274 178.4

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

229 206.3

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,708 214.1

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

900 173.3

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

315 199.4

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

281 172.4

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

327 209.2

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

801 183.2

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

453 123.1

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,189 141.2

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,520 175.5

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

113 106.7

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,660 152.4

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

232 175.1

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

765 209.7

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

908 177.8

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,689 178.7

Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area PPPPRruuraoonecvvbitnaioldoe-GeO,,noWCrcreOedmI-aMNM,, UFeeewLtTtrrooBMMppeoeoedltltirfirtootoaarppnndoo-SclSlFiiitttttaaaaealtntndliissRStStiinitictcavaaaPtetlilirsusA,AtteiiRrcrcneeaIataa-lelMAAAArrereiazaMoentarovp.oAlitrapnaiSot,aNtisot.ic1a5l -A1r5e2a11

archived

on

April

28,

2014462 1,092
655 2,145 1,471
219 526 488

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,660

299.3 164.5 343.6 131.7 356.7 145.8 334.7 251.3 181.5

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

156 132.8

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

744 190.0

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

374 210.3

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

999 259.8

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,175 188.4

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,953 130.6

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

691 237.3

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

272 155.6

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,335 128.2

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

518 154.5

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

240 165.0

Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

328 318.0

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,861 191.5

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

453 216.7

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

878 237.7

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

566 136.5

Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

259 225.9

Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

425 316.4

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,397 235.3

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

92 87.2

San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,273 122.6

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,652 192.8

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,194 197.3

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,503 201.2

Rank 191 113 100 205 131 209 108 177 344 299 198 366 265 201 107 192 189 25 233 8 322 4 284 11 48 183 320 149 106 43 157 328 63 258 334 261 231 17 146 94 62 309 76 19 64 376 345 142 136 126

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 80 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 82 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

476 187.0

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

737 183.4

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

660 263.3

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

299 215.6

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

945 201.7

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,227 188.2

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

519 167.0

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

739 134.0

Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area

258 149.8

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,813 183.6

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

169 148.3

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

212 182.9

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

434 113.7

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

304 245.1

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

156 108.9

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

235 115.6

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

640 201.1

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area SSSptt..rGCinlegoofuiredgl,ed,M,UONTHMMMeetetrrtoropopopololiiltctiaatinatnenSdSSttaiatntatiitsPsitstiuitcciaecalanlAltAeArreAreaearaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2014860 955 241
1,126 687 457 260 287

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

158

181.7 219.2 117.7 163.7 175.7 320.4 145.1 261.1 129.3

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,041 146.2

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

264 187.9

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

374 273.1

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

228 201.1

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,233 189.7

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

217 204.8

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

921 140.8

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

611 184.2

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,908 189.6

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

344 203.8

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

189 142.4

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

516 335.6

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

863 131.1

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

464 203.7

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

655 346.1

Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

245 175.5

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

757 207.2

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,576 173.7

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,102 125.0

Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

202 156.0

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

291 149.1

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

315 169.0

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

391 130.8

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

264 213.4

Rank 163 175 40 96 124 158 228 317 275 173 280 179 357 52 361 356 127 182 88 351 241 196 16 287 41 331 282 159 34 128 150 115 302 171 151 117 295 10 326 118 7 197 112 204 338 256 278 219 327 103

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 81 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 83 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,115

Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

287

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

150

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

175

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,841

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

570

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

319

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

334

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,730

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

172

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

151

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

254

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

305

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

233

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

162

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

183

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

778

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area WWYaookroicmsetesatr,e,WrO, AHMAMMeMictrreootpproooplliiottaalicnntiatSSnettdaaStttiiiansstttiiiPscctauailcleaAAnltrrAeeeaarAearizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

20126 1 399 486 367 799 273
1,277 308

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

918

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

991

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

489

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

248

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
270.0 231.2 132.2 115.8 172.8 142.0 143.4 269.9 208.8 106.2 135.5 198.9 238.8 225.3 108.4 123.8 133.1 220.2 349.0 160.3 325.0 180.9 240.4 163.8 134.4 228.6 168.0 323.0 140.8

Rank 36 68 321 355 208 298 291 37 110 367 312 132 60 78 363 342 319 86 5 249 14 184 58 240 315 73 224 15 301

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 82 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 84 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

130 82.0

Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

100 98.3

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

702 100.0

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

137

84.2

Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

230 214.1

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

506

59.9

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,015 129.9

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

103

70.0

Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

126 112.0

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

711 91.2

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

93 73.0

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

259 109.7

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

212 61.5

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

125 95.7

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

173 99.7

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

478 140.9

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

95 84.5

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area AAAAuttullbgaauunnsrttaintca--S-OCRapinitceydhl,yimkNSaoJ,pnMArdinLeCgtMrsoo-uMpentotracylorii,tipteeaGotndtlAaiSti,n-atSGnaPCtAiSustMteaMictneiaesttletrtrioAcoApaprorleoilazAliitotaranennaaSSvtta.atAtiissrtptiicacaailolA,ANrreeoaa.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2011360 268 84 199
5,710 299 118 454

Augusta-Waterville, ME Micropolitan Statistical Area

72

61.0 69.2 81.4 114.5 121.3 111.3 97.8 88.1 59.7

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,582 112.0

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,245 169.4

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,459 93.2

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

59 39.8

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

146 63.8

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

577 79.2

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

91 65.4

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

95 86.8

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

329 85.8

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

119 66.0

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

132 98.2

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

66 45.7

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

174 69.8

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

975 90.1

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

114 75.6

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

135 76.0

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

107 67.7

Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

51 47.7

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

361 68.8

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,233 73.1

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

338 121.2

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

79 72.4

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

224 93.7

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

827 91.6

Rank 218 135 130 207
8 327 57 288 96 163 271 101 322 144 132 38 205 323 292 222 92 73 98 139 187 328 97 23 155 374 313 240 305 194 199 302 136 366 289 174 259 258 298 360 294 269 75 275 153 160

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 83 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 85 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

873 234.8

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

671

58.1

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

159 114.8

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area

70 34.2

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

253 61.6

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

493 95.9

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

112 45.8

Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

132 97.9

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

124

57.6

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

152 49.4

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

423 72.5

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,447 98.1

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

136 75.2

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

404 82.5

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,992 95.7

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

249 116.9

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,205 58.5

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area CCCCoooolllluoluemmrgaebbdiioSaat,,SaSMptiCroOinnMg-MBse,ertryCtoraOopnpo,MolTiltieXatctanritnMoeSpSdteoattalitrniiottsiaptsPintociulcaSiealttanlaAnttAiersSerteAatiacartaiizlsotAincraaelavA.rAearpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2012068 97
1,847 101 171 591 86 520

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

288

87.1 90.5 86.4 82.6 90.3 102.6 56.8 76.5 103.0

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,314 77.6

Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

119 81.8

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

603 147.2

Cumberland, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

76 75.2

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,594 133.2

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

154 118.4

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

97 89.7

Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area

169 107.8

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

137 36.5

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

569 67.3

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

102 69.1

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

61 55.0

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

524 109.5

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,771 118.9

Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

267 52.2

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,094 91.1

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

148 109.4

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area

124 89.4

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

133 48.2

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

177 174.3

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

657 145.6

East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area

102 91.5

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

151 95.0

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

41 26.8

Rank 6 334 90 377 320
142 365 138 335 356 273 137 261 215 143 87 333 192 169 197 214 172 118 338 253 116 248 220 29 260 47 82 183 108 376 299 293 343 102 80 349 164 103 185 359 19 32 161 147 379

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 84 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 86 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

179 117.4

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

936 131.3

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

87 79.4

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

193 100.6

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

144 51.0

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

253

76.3

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area

92

71.6

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

159

45.6

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

72

39.7

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

70 56.4

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

419 120.5

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

265 67.8

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

257 209.4

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

384 86.5

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

165 83.6

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

103 72.4

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

275 102.3

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gainesville, Gainesville, Glens Falls,

NGFLYAMMMeeettrtrrooopppooollliciitttaiaatnenndSSStitatnaatttiPiissstuttiiiceccanaallltAeAArArreeearaaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2011768 214 365
1,386 84 215 297 75

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

158

63.1 117.9 90.8 159.9 81.4 89.9 184.6 58.6 138.3

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

133 104.5

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

544 70.9

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

537 244.9

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

132 44.7

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

673 100.8

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

195 121.3

Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

477 81.7

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

165 65.3

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

199 81.3

Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

150 142.6

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

324 227.3

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

378 72.8

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

71 63.8

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

973 82.1

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

102 78.5

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

332 94.1

Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area

75 46.0

Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area

188 119.8

Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

228 90.4

Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area

111 85.1

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area

463 51.5

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

125 62.9

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,573 126.9

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

170 59.2

Rank 86 52 239 127 352 255 280 367 375 341 77 297 11 195 208 276 119 317 83 167 25 224 179 15 332 42 113 282 4 368 125 74 221 306 225 35 7 272 314 217 244 151 364 78 171 203 350 318 62 330

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 85 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 87 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

256

70.6

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

77 69.7

Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,527 94.2

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

101

73.5

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

53 52.9

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

102 62.6

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

418 80.8

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

86 78.1

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,305 106.5

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

140 90.7

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

75 54.6

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

144 92.0

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

142 99.7

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

149 79.5

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

95 64.0

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

90 80.7

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

140 85.2

Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Kansas City, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area KKKKeiiilnnnlggensseeptnwoo-nTirc,te-kNmB-RYrpiilscMetho-Flela-toBnrrodtrpi-HsPotoloaisolt,acdcnToi,t,NeTSWdtX-aVAtiniMAsMtPeiMctueraoeetlrtpnoArootperlpoeitolaAailtnriatizanSnotSanSttaaitsatitvtsii.ctsiaAtcilcarApal laAreAiroaer,eaNa o.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

20165 288 121
1,518 212 425 220 181

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

393

47.0 90.2 112.9 78.8 98.4 122.8 73.2 99.6 60.7

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

77 76.1

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

57 44.3

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

157 86.5

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

199 80.8

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

137 70.4

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

319 177.2

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

705 134.4

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

401 82.3

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

289 63.4

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

464 211.4

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

298 160.1

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,376 143.9

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

83 80.8

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

118 106.8

Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area

91 53.1

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

162 130.1

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

83 77.6

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

275 64.8

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

47 44.0

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area

115 41.3

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

579 90.9

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

86 78.4

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

214 106.8

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

16,934 131.0

Rank 283 290 150 265 347 319 229 246 111 168 345 158 131 238 312 231 202 361 173 95 243 134 68 267 133 325 257 369 196 227 285 16 45 216 316 10 24 34 230 110 346 55 249 309 371 373 165 245 109 53

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 86 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 88 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Louisville, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

794 66.1

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

232 90.0

Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

162 128.1

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

164 70.5

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

325 142.4

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

394 283.6

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

272 51.2

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

336

84.3

Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area

68

63.5

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

91 71.0

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,693 257.2

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

171 88.6

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,356 108.5

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

347 146.4

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

81 76.8

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,557 140.9

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

126 114.8

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Mobile, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area MMMooonnntrrgoooee,m, MLeArIyM,MAeeLttrrooMppoeotllriitotaapnnocSlSiitttteaaadtntiissiStntiitccaPaatilulsAeAtincrreateealaAArreizaona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2011060 1,066 2,189
293 774 158 267 404

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

70

83.1 70.3 70.2 73.2 155.3 92.3 175.0 113.7 61.5

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

116 89.9

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

136 122.5

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

107 90.9

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

113 64.8

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

182 83.6

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

403 304.5

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

368 124.0

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,025 73.4

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

146 127.2

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

857 101.3

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

758 57.4

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

18,079 96.6

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

216 132.4

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

212 79.6

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

300 103.0

Ocean City, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

94 93.3

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

109 87.6

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

378 79.2

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

52 46.7

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,004 87.7

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

301 134.0

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

578 71.9

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,337 125.5

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

77 48.4

Rank 301 175 59 284 36 2 351 206 315 281
3 186 105 30 252 37 91 211 286 287 268 26 156 18 93 321 178 69 166 308 209 1 67 266 60 122 336 140 48 237 117 154 190 241 362 188 46 277 64 358

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 87 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 89 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area

138

89.8

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

89

80.2

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,176 147.4

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

455

87.6

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

122

77.2

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

50.9

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

159 101.7

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

370

84.6

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

183

49.7

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,296 91.3

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,533 175.8

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

92 86.9

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,427 59.4

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

76 57.4

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

529 145.0

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

289 56.6

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,955 94.7

Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area PPPPRuurraoonecvvbitnaioldoe-GeO,,noWCrcreOedIm-aMNM,, UFeeewLtTtrrooBMMppeoeoedltltirfirtootoaarppnndoo-SclSlFiiitttttaaaaealtntndliissRStStiinitictcavaaaPtetlilirsusAA,tteiiRrcrcneeaIataal-elMAAAArrereiazMaoentarovp.oAlitrapnaiSot,aNtisoti.c1a5l -A1r5e2a11

archived

on

April

28,

2011366 505 354
1,067 388 170 185 229

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

950

92.1 76.1 185.7 65.5 94.1 113.2 117.7 117.9 103.9

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

52 44.3

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

342 87.3

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

160 90.0

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

467 121.5

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

892 77.3

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,536 145.9

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

226 77.6

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

115 65.8

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

631 60.6

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

339 101.1

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

157 108.0

Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

140 135.7

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,667 132.2

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

216 103.3

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

438 118.6

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

478 115.3

Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

117 102.1

Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

189 140.7

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

936 91.9

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

90 85.3

San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,331 125.7

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,570 121.8

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,472 131.7

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,116 121.5

Rank 180 234 28 189 251 353 121 204 355 162 17 193 329 337 33 340 148 157 256 13 304 152 94 85 84 114 370 191 176 72 250 31 247 303 326 123 107 44 49 115 81 89 120 39 159 201 63 70 51 71

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 88 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 90 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

317 124.5

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

423 105.3

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

351 140.0

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

161 116.1

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

520 111.0

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

527 80.8

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

268 86.3

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

379

68.7

Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area

128 74.3

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,188 100.7

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

67 58.8

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

151 130.2

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

247 64.7

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

229 184.7

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

66 46.1

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

85 41.8

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

420 132.0

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area SSSptt..rGCinlegoofuiredgl,ed,M,UONTHMMMeetetrrtoropopopololiiltctiaatinatnenSdStStaiatntatiitsPsitstiuitcciaecalanlAltAeArreAreaearaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2012469 361 131 552 299 178 109 88

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

94.2 82.9 64.0 80.2 76.5 124.8 60.8 80.1 67.9

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,003 72.5

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

74 52.7

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

152 111.0

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

79 69.7

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,118 172.0

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

101 95.3

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

371 56.7

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

317 95.6

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,481 95.9

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

113 67.0

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

120 90.4

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

301 195.7

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

532 80.8

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

204 89.5

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

243 128.4

Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

91 65.2

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

328 89.8

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,573 173.4

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

698 79.2

Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

106 81.8

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

140 71.7

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

203 108.9

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

150 50.2

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

125 101.0

Rank 66 112 40 88 100 226 198 295 263 126 331 54 310 14 363 372 50 149 212 311 233 254 65 324 235 296 274 348 99 291 22 146 339 145 141 300 170 12 228 184 58 307 182 20 242 219 278 104 354 124

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 89 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 91 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2006

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

875

Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

183

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

144

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

129

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,234

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

558

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

179

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

161

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,558

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

50

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

55

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

71

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

104

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

93

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

82

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

176

Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

487

Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area WWYaookroicmsetesatr,e,WrO, AHMAMMeMictrreootpproooplliiottaalicnntiatSSnettdaaStttiiiansstttiiiPscctauailcleaAAnltrrAeeeaarAeraizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

201685 138 223 113 444 94 700 314

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

320

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

431

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

358

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

304

Complaints Per 100,000 Population
211.9 147.4 126.9 85.3 75.0 139.0 80.5 130.1 108.1 30.9 49.3 55.6 81.4 89.9 54.9 119.1 83.3 71.7 120.7 73.5 100.1 100.5 82.8 89.8 137.1 79.7 73.0 236.5 172.6

Rank 9 27 61
200 262 41 232 56 106 378 357 342 223 177 344 79 210 279 76 264 129 128 213 181 43 236 270 5 21

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2004 (www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metropop/table01.xls).

Federal Trade Commission

Page 90 of 90

Released February 7, 2007

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 92 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 93 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 94 of 285

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report Subject

Page No.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sentinel Complaints by Calendar Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sentinel Top Complaint Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sentinel Fraud Complaints
Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Total Number of Internet-Related Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers for Internet-Related Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

SHLILLdeaaaoewrrnwnggtteeiEiInsstdyntteefMMTlnotrhIeeicdettteyrrfemootnTppCethoonioelltctmiiyfitttCtaaepTVnndolahniiAAnictenatrrPfiteectumsaateCbsssfno’ytRRoerIVmaanAInndfripiockkzetlroiiniannmnmtggaiiatnyvAffttio.osoTgArrnehrFIpdeI.arsfeai.tonuM.,Vtd.Niiti.osCycu..toT1is.mm5e.h-ds.e1p5f.lt.a.2.i.1C..n1..o.t.sa.m.r....cp..h..l.i...va..e.i.n.d...t..o..s..n.......A.....p...r..i..l...2.....8.....,.....2...0....1....6..................................

13 14 15
16 17

Fraud Complaints and Identity Theft Victims by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Detailed State Complaint Figures
One page per State and the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Each detailed State report contains the following information:
 Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Consumers  Amount Paid Reported by Consumers  Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims
Appendices Appendix A1: Description of the Sentinel Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix A2: Sentinel Major Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix A3: Other Sentinel Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Appendix B: Description of the Sentinel Complaint Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Appendix C1: Fraud Complaints for Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix C2: Identity Theft Complaints for Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Federal Trade Commission

Page 1 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 95 of 285

INTRODUCTION

Consumer Sentinel Leading Partners & Data Contributors

Between January and December 2007, Consumer Sentinel, the complaint database developed and maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), received over 800,000 consumer fraud and identity theft complaints. Consumers reported losses from fraud of more than $1.2 billion. The reports in this booklet analyze those complaints.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Better Business Bureaus

Consumer Sentinel collects information about consumer fraud and

identity theft from the FTC and over 125 other organizations and makes it available to law enforcement partners across the nation

Department of Defense

and throughout the world for use in their investigations. Launched

in 1997, the Sentinel database now includes over 4.3 million

complaints. Some future data transfers from other organizations

will contain complaints from 2007 but have not yet been received. Amotroefcpataccyoloorsimtrnsfdrc.piornlemagailnsypet,sretofhvvreioeomrtuotsthoayetlhecnceaoiurtreumsddrtasbihnteeaarPoncuofoweftnnhectteeroreimAnbrreupiezxtplootaonrifasrnettwveiss.dArmaeirlnpfsolaoneeiocatr,htreeNlsfid.loee.riTc1nFt5heTt-edh1C5iais2nd1rdt1ehiptaeiorocrnhtived

on

ApFrCieldo2em8rma,li2sTs0riao1dn6e
National Association

of Attorneys General

Please note: This report is not based on a survey; the complaint figures presented are derived from self-reported and unverified consumer complaints contained in the FTC's database.
For more information about Consumer Sentinel, as well as information about consumer fraud and identity theft, visit the Consumer Sentinel public website at www.consumer.gov/sentinel. If you represent a law enforcement organization, call (877) 7019595 or e-mail sentinel@ftc.gov for membership information.

Canada’s Phonebusters
U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Internet Crime Complaint Center
National Consumers League
Social Security Administration
U.S. Secret Service

The Consumer Sentinel Network (For detailed description and data contributors, see Appendices A1 through A3)

www.consumer.gov/sentinel Federal Trade Commission

www.econsumer.gov

www.consumer.gov/idtheft

Page 2 of 90

www.consumer.gov/military Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 96 of 285

Executive Summary Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data
January – December 2007
xConsumer Sentinel now contains over 4.3 million fraud and identity theft complaints and is accessible to over 1,700 law enforcement agencies – including every state attorney general in the U.S. and consumer protection agencies in 23 nations.
xThe FTC received over 800,000 Consumer Sentinel complaints during calendar year 2007 - 32% were identity theft complaints and 68% were related to other types of fraud.
Fraud
xA total of 555,472 of the Consumer Sentinel complaints were fraud-related. Shop-atHome/Catalog Sales was the leading complaint category with 8% of the overall complaints, followed by Internet Services (5%), Foreign Money Offers (4%), Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries (4%), Computer Equipment and Software (3%), Internet Auctions (3%), Health Care (2%), Travel, Vacations and Timeshare (2%), Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair (xExto2CTi%gihonhen)ctsyIrpune-enmavrsiceneeesre.tnsmtpTareeegwnrpecetosenocrnitt(fteyte2fdd-%oreafifin)urgt,ahdPhaueutncdepcodnloemtoMrenscpsAsealuearngmisiztanoozeotnirsffnasowtevhrvse.ieetpAahrconrpo$wrdatn1iiiBso.nr2ue,guNmbtyfroiereal.arlrn1isusos5dCfrn-ee1;alrp5ulto2sahbo1srest1etr(mhead2epre%cwodrh)eriii.vtarpeeenoddtrmrtaoaennondnAsapefmpeatrariyolrmua2y8snel,tton2hpst0esa1mip6wdea.atyhsmo$de3n4cto9n. tinues method, an increase of 5 percentage points from calendar year 2006.
xSome 64% of fraud complaints where the company's method of initial contact was reported indicate Internet solicitations - electronic mail at 49% and web at 15%. Fifty-three percent of all fraud complaints reported the method of initial contact.
xThe metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of reported consumer fraud complaints are Albany-Lebanon, Oregon; Greeley, Colorado; and Napa, California.
Identity Theft
xCredit card fraud (23%) was the most common form of reported identity theft followed by phone or utilities fraud (18%), employment fraud (14%) and bank fraud (13%). Other significant categories of identity theft reported by victims were government documents/benefits fraud (11%) and loan fraud (5%).
xElectronic fund transfer-related identity theft continues to be the most frequently reported type of identity theft bank fraud during calendar year 2007.
xThe metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of reported identity theft are Napa, California; Madera, California; and Greeley, Colorado.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 3 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 97 of 285

(in thousands)

Sentinel Complaints by Calendar Year1
- Identity Theft Complaints - Fraud Complaints

900

813,899

800

693,526

700

674,283

32% 258,427

600

37% 255,627 37% 246,124

500

400
68% 555,472
300
63% 437,899 63% 428,159
200

100
01TPheersceenfitgaugreeCsscaeiYrtxeecdb-lua2isdne0edPN0oua5netintohtneeatlAoDtraiozl onNnuoamt bCve.arAllorRfpSeaCgeioinsY,ttirNnye-ocl2.oc1m0om5p0-lp1a6li5ani2tns1t.s1bayrccahlievneddaroyneaArCp. rYil 2-82, 2000176
Fraud Complaints by Calendar Year2
(Excluding Identity Theft)

600

555,472

(in thousands)

500

437,899

428,159

Internet-Related

40% Fraud Complaints

400

221,226

45% 197,085 48% 205,269

300

Other Fraud

200

60%

Complaints

55% 240,814 52% 222,890
100

334,246

0
CY-2005

CY-2006

CY-2007

2Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel fraud complaints by calendar year.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 4 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 98 of 285

Sentinel Top Complaint Categories1 January 1 – December 31, 2007

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Identity Theft

258,427 32%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales 3 Internet Services2

62,811 8% 42,266 5%

4 Foreign Money Offers

32,868 4%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries 6 Computer Equipment and Software2

32,162 4% 27,036 3%

7 Internet Auctions

24,376 3%

8 9 10 11 12

Health Care TIAMnrdvaavegvasaetnzlmc,ineVe-enFacsticetsaeaedntLiidnooPnBausuneanystneeardAnsrTdizCoiCmlnuarebves.sdhAiartpraPeior,oNtoe.c1t5io-1n52/R11eaprcahiirved

on

April

28,1260,10697 14,903 14,342 13,705 12,970

2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

13 Business Opps and Work-at-Home Plans

11,362 1%

14 Real Estate (Not Timeshares)

9,475 1%

15 Office Supplies and Services

9,211 1%

16 Telephone Services

8,155 1%

17 Employ Agencies/Job Counsel/Overseas Work

5,932 1%

18 Debt Management/Credit Counseling

3,442 <1%

19 Multi-Level Mktg/Pyramids/Chain Letters

3,092 <1%

20 Charitable Solicitations

1,843 <1%

1Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel complaints (813,899) received by the FTC between January 1 and December 31, 2007. Twenty-five percent (200,136) of the Sentinel complaints received by the FTC did not contain specific product service codes. For Sentinel category descriptions, see Appendix B.
2In previous reports, complaints for “Internet Services” and “Computer Equipment and Software” were reported under a combined category.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 5 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 99 of 285

Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

CY
2005 2006 2007

Total No. of Complaints
437,899 428,159 555,472

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid
285,184 364,454 493,530

Percentage of

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid

Amount Paid

Reported

65%

$683,018,044

85%

$1,187,174,644

89%

$1,237,434,851

Average Amount Paid1
$2,395 $3,257 $2,507

Median Amount Paid2
$349 $500 $349

1Average is based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 285,184; CY-2006 = 364,454 ; and CY-2007 = 493,530. Two hundred forty-five consumers reported an amount paid of $1 million or more during CY-2007; 49 and 184 consumers for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.
2Median is the middle number in a set of numbers so that half the numbers have values that are greater than the median and half have values that are less. Calculation of the median excludes complaints with amount paid reported as $0.
Distributiocnitedoinf PFuerntae uAridzonCa vo. Amrpapio,lNaoi.n15t-1s52b11yarRchiveepd oonrAtpreil d28,A201m6 ount Paid Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Amount Paid $0 $1 - 25 $26 - 50 $51 - 75 $76 - 100 $101 - 250 $251 - 500 $501 - 1,000 $1,001 - 5,000 More than $5,000

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3

91,037 32%

154,239 42%

270,041 55%

17,044

6%

15,279

4%

15,746

3%

17,611

6%

15,719

4%

20,071

4%

9,806

3%

9,056

2%

11,711

2%

9,432

3%

9,223

3%

12,405

3%

30,367 11%

28,586

8%

38,425

8%

27,440 10%

28,377

8%

31,765

6%

23,424

8%

29,585

8%

28,145

6%

45,110 16%

58,240 16%

49,962 10%

13,913

5%

16,150

4%

15,259

3%

3Percentages are based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 285,184; CY-2006 = 364,454; and CY-2007 = 493,530.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 6 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 100 of 285

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers1 January 1 - December 31, 2007
50%

40%
33%

30%

28%

20% 17%

10%

10% 0%

Bank Account
Dcietebditin

3%
PCuAeadnshtve/aCnAacrieszhonaCv.hAercpkaio,

No. 15-15211
Credit Cards

7%
archived
Money Order

on

April 28,
1%

2016

Telephone Wire Bill Transfer

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

Payment Method Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid

Bank Account Debit 14,802 23% $ 26,448,169

13,156 20% $ 37,712,964

11,726 17% $ 29,371,619

Cash/Cash Advance

2,383 4%

$ 17,210,216

2,444 4%

$ 13,245,360

2,334 3% $ 18,187,539

Check 10,440 16% $ 75,252,950

8,628 13% $ 96,464,400

6,757 10% $ 80,035,706

Credit Cards 19,371 30% $ 36,735,021

20,475 30% $ 40,677,855

22,324 33% $ 49,770,123

Money Order

7,200 11% $ 12,538,520

5,913 9%

$ 20,357,643

4,596 7% $ 31,071,393

Telephone Bill

1,175 2%

$ 491,499

1,267 2%

$ 418,295

974 1% $ 295,724

Wire Transfer Total Reporting Payment Method

9,485 15% 64,856

$ 86,558,141

15,460 23% 67,343

$ 149,640,338

18,484 28% 67,195

$ 130,958,802

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the method of payment: CY-2005 = 64,856; CY-2006 = 67,343; and CY-2007 = 67,195. 12% of the consumers reported this information during CY-2007, 15% and 16% for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 7 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 101 of 285

Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers1 January 1 - December 31, 2007

Internet - E-mail
Internet - Web Site/Others
Mail

15% 14%

49%

Phone

11%

cited

Others
in Puente

Arizona

v.

11%
Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers

Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Contact Method Internet - E-mail Internet - Web Site/Others Mail Phone Others
Total Reporting Contact Method

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1

111,480 34%

138,144 45%

142,445

49%

64,060 20%

46,696 15%

44,244

15%

59,761 18%

50,350 16%

40,542

14%

53,536 17%

39,399 13%

31,769

11%

34,853 11%

31,746 10%

32,780

11%

323,690

306,335

291,780

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints for each calendar year where company’s method of initial contact was reported by consumers: CY-2005 = 323,690; CY-2006 = 306,335; and CY-2007 = 291,780. 53% of consumers reported this information during CY-2007, 74% and 72% for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 8 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 102 of 285

Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age1 January 1 - December 31, 2007

19 and Under

2%

20 - 29

16%

30 - 39

21%

40 - 49

23%

50 - 59

20%

70

60 - 69
and Over
cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

9%
No. 15-15211
9%

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Consumer Age Range 19 and Under
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over
Total Reporting Age

CY - 2005 Complaints Percentages1

8,025

3%

65,342

20%

72,335

23%

74,397

23%

59,108

18%

23,783

7%

16,969

5%

319,959

CY - 2006 Complaints Percentages1

2,657

2%

23,361

16%

29,112

21%

33,037

23%

28,879

20%

11,728

8%

12,905

9%

141,679

CY - 2007 Complaints Percentages1

2,081

2%

20,538

16%

26,501

21%

29,157

23%

25,725

20%

11,071

9%

11,586

9%

126,659

1Percentages are based on the total number of consumers reporting their age in fraud complaints for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 319,959; CY-2006 = 141,679; and CY-2007 = 126,659. 23% of consumers reported this information during CY-2007, 73% and 33% for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 9 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 103 of 285

Definition of "Internet-related": A fraud complaint is "Internet-related" if it concerns an Internet product or service, the company initially contacts the consumer via the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints

Total Number of Internet-Related Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid
Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

CY
2005 2006 2007

Total No. of Complaints
197,085 205,269 221,226

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid
160,573 177,245 192,558

Percentage of Complaints Reporting
Amount Paid
81% 86% 87%

Amount Paid Reported
$336,345,604 $590,494,777 $525,743,643

Average Amount Paid1
$2,095 $3,332 $2,730

Median Amount Paid2
$342 $500 $395

1Average is based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 160,573;

CY-2006 = 177,245; and CY-2007= 192,558. Eighty-six consumers reported an amount paid of $1 million or more during

CY-2007; 24 and 85 consumers for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Distribution of Internet-Related Fraud 2hMalefdhiaavneisvathlueems tihdadtlecarinteeuldmesbisne.rPCiuanlecanuslteaettioAofnrinzouofmnthbaeevrms. esAodriptahnaaietoxh,caNllufodt.he1se5cno-u1mm5pb2le1ari1snthasarwvcehitivhvaealumdeoosuntnhtAatppaariridel

2g8re,a2te0r1t6han the reported as $0.

median

and

Complaints by Reported Amount Paid

Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Amount Paid $0 $1 - 25 $26 - 50 $51 - 75 $76 - 100 $101 - 250 $251 - 500 $501 - 1,000 $1,001 - 5,000 More than $5,000

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3 Complaints Percentages3

35,957 22%

75,589 43%

98,666 51%

10,294

6%

6,836

4%

6,490

3%

11,319

7%

7,130

4%

7,596

4%

6,840

4%

4,479

3%

4,630

2%

6,303

4%

4,564

3%

4,776

2%

20,234 13%

14,163

8%

15,912

8%

17,597 11%

14,150

8%

12,838

7%

16,491 10%

15,740

9%

12,175

6%

28,191 18%

26,903 15%

22,458 12%

7,347

5%

7,691

4%

7,017

4%

3Percentages are based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 160,573; CY-2006 = 177,245; and CY-2007 = 192,558.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 10 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 104 of 285

Definition of "Internet-related": A fraud complaint is "Internet-related" if it concerns an Internet product or service, the company initially contacts the consumer via the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers For Internet-Related Fraud Complaints1 January 1 - December 31, 2007
50%

40%

38%

30%

28%

20% 17%

10% 0%

ABccciatoenduknint

7%
3%
PCueanshte/CAariszhona Cv.hAercpkaio, Advance

No. 15-15211
Credit Cards

8%
archived
Money Order

on April 28, 2016
1%
Telephone Wire Bill Transfer

Debit

Methods of Payment Reported by Consumers

For Internet-Related Fraud Complaints

Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

CY - 2005

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

Payment Method Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid Complaints Percentages1 Amount Paid

Bank Account Debit

6,153 19%

$11,181,001

6,643 18%

$ 21,792,498

6,653 17%

$ 13,751,585

Cash/Cash Advance

1,039

3%

$11,164,636

1,169

3%

$ 7,648,293

1,216

3%

$ 7,943,260

Check

3,437 10%

$21,804,907

2,850

8%

$ 60,119,725

2,577

7%

$ 17,906,180

Credit Cards 12,208 37%

$19,004,962

12,927 35%

$ 24,736,839

14,822 38%

$ 30,681,611

Money Order

3,997 12%

$ 7,839,943

3,660 10%

$ 16,661,396

2,962

8%

$ 25,663,620

Telephone Bill

424

1%

$ 96,364

429

1%

$ 259,659

298

1%

$ 112,452

Wire Transfer

5,557 17%

Total Reporting Payment Method

32,815

$41,786,350

8,769 24% 36,447

$ 91,623,738

10,857 28% 39,385

$ 76,670,821

1Percentages are based on the total number of Internet-related fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the method of payment: CY-2005 = 32,815; CY-2006 = 36,447; and CY-2007 = 39,385. 18% of the consumers reported this information during CY-2007, 17% and 18% for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 11 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 105 of 285

Definition of “Internet-related”: A fraud complaint is “Internet-related” if: it concerns an Internet product or service, the company initially contacts the consumer via the Internet, or the consumer responds via the Internet.

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age1 January 1 - December 31, 2007

19 and Under

2%

20 - 29

19%

30 - 39

23%

40 - 49

24%

50 - 59

20%

70

60 - 69
and Over
cited

in

Puente

Ar4iz% ona

v.

8%
Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Consumer Age Range 19 and Under
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over

CY - 2005 Complaints Percentages1

5,501

3%

40,041

25%

39,803

25%

37,585

24%

25,840

16%

8,468

5%

2,590

2%

CY - 2006 Complaints Percentages1

1,495

2%

11,899

19%

14,420

24%

14,954

24%

12,052

20%

4,544

7%

1,802

3%

CY - 2007 Complaints Percentages1

1,246

2%

11,225

19%

13,889

23%

14,362

24%

11,798

20%

4,638

8%

2,366

4%

Total Reporting Age

159,828

61,166

59,524

1Percentages are based on the total number of consumers reporting their age in Internet-related fraud complaints for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 159,828; CY-2006 = 61,166; and CY-2007 = 59,524. 27% of consumers reported this information during CY-2007, 81% and 30% for CY-2005 and CY-2006, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 12 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 106 of 285

How Victims’ Information is Misused1

Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Credit Card Fraud

Loan Fraud

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007 Theft Subtype

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007

New Accounts

15.6% 15.2% 14.2% Business / Personal /

Existing Account

11.4% 10.7% 9.4%

Student Loan

2.6% 2.5% 2.3%

Unspecified

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Auto Loan / Lease

1.8% 1.7% 1.4%

Total

26%

25%

23%

Real Estate Loan

1.2% 1.3% 1.3%

Phone or Utilities Fraud

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype Telephone - New Accounts

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007
5.5% 4.4% 7.3%

Wireless - New Accounts

9.0% 7.2% 6.5%

Utilities - New Accounts

5.2% 5.8% 5.2%

Unauthorized Charges to Existing Accounts

0.7% 0.7% 0.5%

Unspecified

0.4% 0.5% 0.5%

Total

18% 17% 18%

Unspecified Total
Other Identity Theft
Theft Subtype Uncertain3 Miscellaneous3 Evading the Law Medical Internet / Email

0.2% 5%

0.2% 5%

0.3% 5%

Percentages Percentages Percentages

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007

ʊ

12.0% 11.6%

ʊ 2.2% 1.9% 2.0%

4.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.2%

7.4% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4%

Employment-Related
Theft Subtype Employment-Related Fraud
Bank Fraud2
Theft Subtype Electronic Fund Transfer

Fraud

Percentages Percentages Percentages

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007
12% 14% 14%

citedPCeinr8Yc.e-P0n2%t0ua0eg5enstePACer8Yrci.ez-0n2o%t0an0g6aes

v. Arpaio, No.
Percentages CY-2007
7.0%

Apartment or House Rented Insurance 1BPSC5erhao-cni1plukd5erri2ruStti1pyue1tpsRcpy/aeoOrnrctttahhlievFrerIdanuvodenstAmpernilts28, Magazines Other3 Sum:

0.9% 2001.46%
0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2%
17.4% 25%

Existing Accounts

7.5% 5.8% 4.0% Attempted Identity Theft

0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
ʊ 24%

0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
ʊ 25%

New Accounts

3.3% 3.1% 3.1%

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Unspecified Total

0.1% 18%

0.1% 16%

0.1% 13%

Theft Subtype Attempted Identity Theft

CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007

6%

6%

5%

Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

Percentages

Theft Subtype Fraudulent Tax Return Filed

CY-2005
4.8%

Government Benefits Applied For / Received

1.5%

Driver's License Issued / Forged Other Government Documents Issued / Forged4 Social Security Card Issued / Forged4

1.8% 0.6% 0.2%

Unspecified

<0.1%

Total

9%

Percentages
CY-2006
6.3% 1.3% 1.5% 0.9%
ʊ <0.1% 10%

Percentages
CY-2007
8.0% 1.4% 0.9% 0.7%
ʊ <0.1% 11%

1Percentages are based on the total number of complaints in the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse for each calendar year: CY-2005 = 255,627; CY-2006 = 246,124; and CY-2007 = 258,427. Note that 16% of identity theft complaints include more than one type of identity theft in CY-2007, 20% in CY-2005 and 18% in CY-2006.
2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.
3Theft subtype "Other" was replaced by theft subtypes "Miscellaneous" and "Uncertain" in CY-2006.
4Theft subtype "Social Security Card Issued/Forged" was combined with theft subtype "Other Government Documents Issued/Forged" in CY-2006.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 13 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 107 of 285

Law Enforcement Contact1 January 1 – December 31, 2007

8% of Victims Notified a
Police Department and a Report
Was NOT Taken

65% of Victims Did Not Notify a Police Department

27% of Victims Notified a
Police Department 1nlaPowetairWfnceienedndfaotasaargcRTpeeomsaelkpiaecernoeentcrdbctiteaoepsndeatdraitcnmotnPeinntufhtoee(rn2mt4otea2tat,iAl3o4nrni1uz.)mo.Lnbe9eas9rs%vot.hfoAaifdnretpohnanetiieotiyd,peetNnhrtcoeieft.ytn1ctt5ohom-ef1fvpt5ilv2caiti1cinmt1tismsawswrchwhheohriveonevocditocifnotiitemnadcsAttehipdnerdtiFlihcT2eaC8tFe,Tdt2hCwa0td1htie6hrteehcyetrlhytahrdeeypohratedd
contacted a police department did not indicate if a report was taken.

Law Enforcement Contact Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

If the victim notified a police department, was a report taken?
Yes No Not Reported Total Who Notified a Police Department Total Who Did Not Notify a Police Department Total Reporting Law Enforcement Contact Information

CY-2005

Complaints Percentages2

74,704

30%

21,328

9%

1,202

<1%

97,234

40%

148,752

60%

245,986

CY-2006

Complaints Percentages2

69,072

30%

18,520

8%

1,070

<1%

88,662

38%

144,943

62%

233,605

CY-2007

Complaints Percentages2

64,934

27%

18,634

8%

238

<1%

83,806

35%

158,535

65%

242,341

2Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims indicated whether they had notified a police department: CY-2005 = 245,986; CY-2006 = 233,605; and CY-2007 = 242,341. 99% of identity theft victims who contacted the FTC directly reported law enforcement contact information in CY-2007, 98% in both CY-2005 and CY-2006.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 14 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 108 of 285

Identity Theft Complaints by Victim Age1 January 1 – December 31, 2007

30

28%

23%

20

19%

10
5%

13%

10%
6% (65 And Over)

0 Under 18
1Percentages are based (231,576). 95% of the
cited in

Pvoinucettihnmet1seto8wAta-hrl2oizn9ocuonmnabtaevcr.teoAdfriptdha3eein0oFt,-iTt3NyC9othd.eir1fet5cc-tol1ym5r2pe1lpa41oi0nratt-esr4dcw9hthhiveerieredavgoicent.imA5ps r0riel-p25o8r9,te2d0t1he6i6r a0gea(6n04d-%64O) ver

Identity Theft Complaints by Victim Age Calendar Years 2005 through 2007

Consumer Age Range Under 18 18 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 and Over
60 - 64 65+ Total Reporting Age

CY-2005

Complaints Percentages2

11,601

5%

70,274

29%

56,527

24%

47,611

20%

30,313

13%

23,035

9%

8,132

3%

14,903

6%

239,361

CY-2006

Complaints Percentages2

10,838

5%

65,757

29%

52,631

23%

44,721

20%

29,383

13%

22,305

10%

7,988

4%

14,317

6%

225,635

CY-2007

Complaints Percentages2

11,769

5%

65,695

28%

54,208

23%

44,873

19%

30,927

13%

24,104

10%

8,900

4%

15,204

6%

231,576

2Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims reported their age: CY-2005 = 239,361; CY-2006 = 225,635; and CY-2007 = 231,576. 95% of the victims who contacted the FTC directly reported their age in CY-2007, 95% in CY-2005 and 94% in CY-2006.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 15 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 109 of 285

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for

Fraud Consumer Complaints1

January 1 – December 31, 2007

Rank Metropolitan Area

Complaints

1 Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

642

2 Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,359

3 Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

703

4 Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

790

5 Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

522

6 Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

481

7 Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

472

8 Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

518

9 Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

642

10 Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

740

11 Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

667

12 Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,197

13 Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

652

14 Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

859

15 Gettysburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

415

16 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

472

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area DNSOWTSatouilahlylrrtieirmhsetsibsean-pvBuwmgiirateal,yol,nteN,necWt-Nro,iCMt,nCeACWoMdTHMoMIieaMrnMetreircbstiPorrvciooopcurirrlpopo,eloopoleMnip,lolttiioaINelttinlaatMiCnnAatSanerSSntMiatzSttrtSaaooiticttastpniiarttssoioiatttcsiliipstaiccvittolaacia.lcllAaniAatlAAarlSrAenprrAtaeearaSaaretieitaosaat,tiiNcsatoilc.Aa1lr5Ae-ar1e5a211

archived

on

April

28,

210,40114618 458 523
1,780 895 380 606 544 698

27 East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

602

28 Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

586

29 Racine, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

710

30 Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

513

31 Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,166

32 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

461

33 Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

527

34 Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

448

35 Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,230

36 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

519

37 Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

449

38 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

976

39 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

676

40 Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

485

41 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

622

42 Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

449

43 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,395

44 Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

402

45 Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

628

46 Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

486

47 Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,310

48 Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

430

49 Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,311

50 Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

707

Complaints
Per 100,000
Population
575.8 573.8 526.5 511.5 459.9 457.6 444.1 443.2 433.5 427.1 426.9 424.0 420.6 413.0 410.5 408.0 405.5 404.9 388.6 383.8 383.3 381.4 376.2 374.8 372.1 367.1 363.3 362.2 362.1 361.6 361.5 360.8 360.1 358.5 357.5 355.1 353.9 353.3 350.2 346.5 345.0 344.8 338.9 338.0 337.7 329.7 327.0 327.0 325.5 325.3

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See fraud figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix C1. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 16 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 110 of 285

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for Identity Theft Consumer Complaints1 January 1 – December 31, 2007

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Metropolitan Area

Complaints

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

404

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

410

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

540

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

876

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,563

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

898

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

314

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

223

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

261

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

322

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

318

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

454

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

360

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,436

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

336

Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

307

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

366

Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area MLSMOPSatuaxoealsnnicrctscCakoabertnrudGodu,r-n,coyGTc,Cer,ihACstdANeo,aAduNMC,MsFMMiaeMnLentterdirMPoMtcorprOuopeeooepotatplrronlkioooitlsttaplpiae-itnoVotnaalAlnSieniStttrnaStaaiSatnznttuttaioaisSrStsanttittiits,aisacatcttCiatiiacivlscAslat.atAilAilcAcMrAaAraerelrleapraeAteAaraaoriroepea,aoNlitoa.n1S5ta-1ti5st2ic1a1l

archived Area

on

April

28, 2210581836 209
1,096 397 218 362 305 239
1,231

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

383

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,165

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,358

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,317

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

547

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,084

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,422

Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

169

Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

749

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

463

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

675

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

18,761

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

230

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

186

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

209

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

595

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

487

Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

165

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

162

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

784

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

211

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

190

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

261

Complaints
Per 100,000
Population
302.6 280.2 228.0 225.9 223.1 218.1 214.8 209.8 208.9 206.1 196.5 196.1 186.5 184.1 179.1 177.2 175.9 166.4 164.1 163.6 162.8 161.6 160.0 157.9 157.3 154.8 153.9 153.4 152.6 152.3 152.2 151.2 151.1 150.3 149.4 146.2 145.6 145.4 144.9 143.5 143.0 142.9 141.7 141.6 141.2 140.0 139.6 138.4 137.4 137.3

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See identity theft figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix C2. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 17 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 111 of 285

FRAUD COMPLAINTS BY CONSUMER STATE

IDENTITY THEFT VICTIMS BY STATE

January 1 - December 31, 2007

Rank Consumer State 1 Colorado 2 Washington 3 Missouri 4 Arizona 5 Alaska 6 Maryland 7 Oregon 8 New Hampshire 9 Nevada 10 Hawaii 11 Utah 12 Virginia 13 Florida 14 Minnesota 15 Wisconsin 16 Idaho 17 Wyoming 18 Illinois 19 California 20 New Jersey 21 Georgia 22 Ohio 23 Indiana 24 North Carolina 25 Tennessee 26 Maine 27 Nebraska 28 Montana 29 Delaware 30 Pennsylvania 31 Texas 32 Massachusetts 33 Connecticut 34 Michigan 35 West Virginia 36 Rhode Island 37 Vermont 38 New York 39 Kansas 40 Alabama 41 South Carolina 42 New Mexico 43 Iowa 44 Oklahoma 45 Kentucky 46 Louisiana 47 Arkansas 48 North Dakota 49 South Dakota 50 Mississippi

Complaints

Complaints

Per 100,000

Per 100,000

Population

Complaints

Rank Victim State

Population

233.8

11,364

1 Arizona

137.1

230.6

14,918

2 California

120.1

219.7

12,912

3 Nevada

114.2

219.3

13,903

4 Texas

107.9

209.5

1,432

5 Florida

105.6

209.0

11,745

6 New York

100.1

205.6

7,704

7 Georgia

91.6

205.3

2,702

8 Colorado

89.0

200.3

5,138

9 New Mexico

87.5

196.4

2,520

10 Maryland

85.8

193.2

5,110

11 Illinois

80.2

191.0

14,733

12 New Jersey

79.0

181.0

33,027

13 Washington

76.4

180.6

9,388

14 Pennsylvania

72.5

175.9

9,852

15 Michigan

70.3

170.9

2,563

16 Delaware

69.7

169.1

884

17 Alabama

69.6

168.1

21,602

18 Virginia

69.0

cited

in

168.0 167.4 167.0 165.4 164.0 163.8 161.1 11P65u09e..35nte

61,409 14,542 15,936 18,964 10,405 Arizona1v924.,,,918A214r061paio,
2,831

No.

19 20 21 15-152221321 24 25 26 27

Connecticut arMNOcorhiesrigstvhooeunCdraioronlinAapril
Massachusetts Tennessee Oklahoma Indiana Ohio

28,

2016

68.8 68.1 67.4 67.0 66.5 64.7 63.9 63.4 62.6

156.2

1,496

28 Louisiana

62.3

155.1

1,341

29 Kansas

61.0

154.4

19,197

30 South Carolina

60.6

152.1

36,367

31 Utah

57.8

151.4

9,766

32 Mississippi

57.3

150.3

5,264

33 Arkansas

56.5

146.7

14,780

34 Rhode Island

56.0

146.5

2,654

35 Minnesota

55.0

142.8

1,511

36 Idaho

49.2

141.6

880

37 New Hampshire

48.9

141.0

27,219

38 Alaska

47.0

139.6

3,875

39 Hawaii

45.9

139.4

6,451

40 Nebraska

44.7

137.1

6,041

41 Wisconsin

43.7

136.9

2,697

42 Kentucky

43.3

134.3

4,014

43 Wyoming

42.5

133.5

4,828

44 Montana

40.8

129.7

5,502

45 Maine

40.2

123.9

5,319

46 West Virginia

40.2

122.8

3,482

47 Vermont

38.1

113.5

726

48 Iowa

35.6

110.5

880

49 South Dakota

30.8

90.6

2,644

50 North Dakota

28.5

Complaints 8,688
43,892 2,930 25,796 19,270 19,319 8,744 4,328 1,723 4,821 10,304 6,864 4,942 9,016 7,079
603 3,221 5,319 2,409 2,552 3,962 6,069 4,292 3986 2,312 4,026 7,178 2,674 1,694 2,670 1,529 1,673 1,601
592 2,857
737 643 321 589 793 2,450 1,836 222 391 530 729 237 1,063 245 182

Note: Per 100,000 unit of population estimates are based on the 2007 U.S. Census population estimates (Table NST-EST2007-01 - Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007). Numbers for the District of Columbia are: Fraud = 1,375 complaints and 233.7 complaints per 100,000 population; Identity Theft = 784 victims and 133.2 victims per 100,000 population.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 18 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 112 of 285

Detailed State Information
(one page per state and the District of Columbia)

Fraud Complaints

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Consumers

Amount Paid
cited in Puente Arizona

Reported
v. Arpaio, No.

by Consumers
15-15211 archived on

April

28,

2016

Identity Theft Complaints

Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims

Federal Trade Commission

Page 19 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 113 of 285
ALABAMA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 9,672

Fraud Complaints from Alabama Consumers = 6,451

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Alabama Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

707

11%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

458

7%

3 Internet Services

452

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

366

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

303

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Alabama consumers (6,451).

Amount Paid Reported by Alabama Consumers
TCrm2oeAotop6mvaro,ele4prr.tNl5aeagdo1icen.biottayesfmdAoiluna$PTnb2Patao1imptudaa,ea1liRnd4Acetoi7empsn,obs7Aoruau2rtmsien5zedtedornsoan(R5Tvt,eh9o.pe1tAao7trolr)p5t.tCaia,nlTo9igonmw1,uA7pomNmlcabooite.nnrP1tsosdu5fm-f1ePr5aRresu2redr1cpee1copnoroatmtrairtncpeggdhle9aiAaoi2vnnfe%mtsCdaomwooumohnnuetprAnlPetapaapirnimaidltiosd2u8on,fAt2$pm01aA$o1imdv3u6e,inwl5rtlaai7oPsg4naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Alabama Victims = 3,221

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alabama Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2

Complaints 822 688 484
371

5 Employment-Related Fraud

247

6 Loan Fraud

180

Other

745

Attempted Identity Theft

141

Percentage1 26% 21% 15%
12%
8% 6% 23% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 3,221 victims reporting from Alabama. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Alabama reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 20 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 114 of 285
ALASKA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,753

Fraud Complaints from Alaska Consumers = 1,432

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Alaska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

161

11%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

118

8%

3 Internet Services

111

8%

4 Foreign Money Offers

105

7%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

70

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Alaska consumers (1,432).

Amount Paid Reported by Alaska Consumers
TCr2oeAotp1mvao,el4prrtNl3aeagdo2icen.biottayesfmdAoilunaPTn$sPakto3iaptud,aa2celiRo6ndAn6etiesmps,u9obAom8raurte5sienzredstdo(no1an,R2Tvt6eho.9petA)ao.trolrp1OttCaia,nnlo2igeonm6,ucA9pmoNmlnabosite.unrPm1tosd5ef-rf1Prr5eaRepu2reod1cpre1cotneoradtmtairancpgnghle8aaiAoi9vmnfe%mtosCdouwoounmhtnneptprAalPeaipdaairnimiodltfos2u$8n2,At.32pm0maA$o1idvi2u6lel,nwi5rotaa7nPsg.4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Alaska Victims = 321

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alaska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 72 50
46 29 21 20 94 14

Percentage1 22% 16%
14% 9% 7% 6% 29% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 321 victims reporting from Alaska. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 12% of victims from Alaska reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 21 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 115 of 285
ARIZONA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 22,591

Fraud Complaints from Arizona Consumers = 13,903

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Arizona Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,325

10%

2 Internet Services

961

7%

3 Foreign Money Offers

737

5%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

728

5%

5 Health Care

610

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Arizona consumers (13,903).

Amount Paid Reported by Arizona Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tpomv3aorele,pr9r.tNlaea0gdoic3en.biottayesfmdAoiruni$PTzn3oPaton1iptudaaa,e2liRcnd0Aoeti3nempss,ob0Auoramu9rtsien2zeedtrdosno(an1RT2vte,ho.6pet1Aaot4rolr1)pttC.2aianlo,Fi6gonmo1,uAupm4Nrmlacboitoe.nnrP1tsosd5uf-mf1Pre5aRreu2sred1cpree1copnoraotmtarirntcpgeghle9daiAoi1vanfen%mtsCdaowmooumhnnoeutprAnlPeaptaaiprnimidaltios2du8on,Aft2pm$0aA1$o1idv2mu6e,nwi4rltlaa7iPsgo4aeniodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Arizona Victims = 8,688

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arizona Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 3,122 1,388
1,008 996 573 414
2,032 353

Percentage1 36% 16%
12% 11% 7% 5% 23% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 8,688 victims reporting from Arizona. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Arizona reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 22 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 116 of 285
ARKANSAS Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 5,083

Fraud Complaints from Arkansas Consumers = 3,482

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Arkansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

398

11%

2 Internet Services

236

7%

3 Internet Auctions

184

5%

4 Foreign Money Offers

178

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

166

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Arkansas consumers (3,482).

Amount Paid Reported by Arkansas Consumers
TCrm2oeAotpo3mvaor,ele4prr.tNl8aeagdo2icen.biottayesfmdAoirunk$PTna1Paton9iptusdaaa,e1lsiRnd1Aceti8oempsn,ob2Aosrauu0rtsmien9zedtdoernosan(RT3vte,ho.1pet7Aaot6rolr)p3ttC.aia,nlo1Figonm7iv,uA6pemNmlcabooite.nnrP1tsosdu5fm-f1Pre5aRreus2red1rcpee1copnoroatmtrairtncpgeghlde9aiAoi1vannfe%mtsCdaomwooumhonneutprAnlPeatpaaiprnimiadltios2du8on,Aft2$pm01aA$o1imdv6u6e,niw0rltlaa2iPosg0naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Arkansas Victims = 1,601

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arkansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 380 289
262 196 139
79 399
72

Percentage1 24% 18%
16% 12% 9% 5% 25% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 1,601 victims reporting from Arkansas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Arkansas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 23 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 117 of 285
CALIFORNIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 105,301

Fraud Complaints from California Consumers = 61,409

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for California Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

6,591

11%

2 Internet Services

5,629

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

4,485

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

3,678

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

2,993

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from California consumers (61,409).

Amount Paid Reported by California Consumers
TCrm2oeAo6tipmlv1aoleli,pro4rtNlaena0gdoico9en.birottayesmfmdCooari$unelPTni1.fPato7oipturd1anae,liiR4ndaA2etciemps0oonb,Ao6rsaurtu4sienzem7dtdoenorsanRT(vt5eho.4petA,ao3trolr51pttC54aian)lo,.i3gonm1T,uApm5hNmliaboritte.nyrP1-tfosd5ifv-ef1Pr5aRceuo2redn1cpse1counormatmtairencpgrghsle8airAoi8venfe%mptsCdoorwooutemhnndetprAalPenapaairanimidmltos2ou8un,nAtt2pmp0aA$ao1idvi3u6de,nw1rotaa5fPsg$6ae1id2

Identity Theft Complaints from California Victims = 43,892

Identity Theft Types Reported by California Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 9,883 7,832 7,729
6,238 3,537 2,045 11,097 2,107

Percentage1 23% 18% 18%
14% 8% 5% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 43,892 victims reporting from California. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from California reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 24 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 118 of 285
COLORADO Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 15,692

Fraud Complaints from Colorado Consumers = 11,364

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Colorado Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,162

10%

2 Internet Services

939

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

743

7%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

574

5%

5 Internet Auctions

520

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Colorado consumers (11,364).

Amount Paid Reported by Colorado Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tipmlv1aoleli,pro3rtNlaena6gdoico4en.birottayesmfmdCooroiune$lPTn.o4Patroa1iptuddaa,e3oliRnd1Aceti8oempsn,ob9Aosrauu3rtsmien9zedtdoernosan(RT1vte0ho.p,et2Aaot2rolr15pttC0)aian.lo,i2gonmF2,uAopm5Numlarbotitee.nerP1tnosd5fc-of1Prn5aResu2ured1cpme1coenorratmtsairncrpgeghle9paiAoi0ovnfre%mttsCdeodwooumahnnnetprAalPeampaairnoimidlutos2nut8np,Ata2pmi0daA$o1iodv4u6fe,nw0$rta1a4Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Colorado Victims = 4,328

Identity Theft Types Reported by Colorado Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 911 872 636
599 312 195 1,256 216

Percentage1 21% 20% 15%
14% 7% 5% 29% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,328 victims reporting from Colorado. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Colorado reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 25 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 119 of 285
CONNECTICUT Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,673

Fraud Complaints from Connecticut Consumers = 5,264

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Connecticut Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

746

14%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

499

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

409

8%

4 Internet Services

360

7%

5 Internet Auctions

342

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Connecticut consumers (5,264).

Amount Paid Reported by Connecticut Consumers
TCr2oeAotp5mvao,el2prrtNl6aeagdo4icen.biottayesfmdCooiunnPTn$nPato5eiptud,caa8teliiR1cndAu7etietmps,2cobAoo6raurnt3sienszedutdomnoeanRrTsvteho.(pe4tAao,t7rolrp34ttCai0a,nlo7)ig.onm3,uA0pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi0vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw2rtaa3Psg0aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Connecticut Victims = 2,409

Identity Theft Types Reported by Connecticut Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

621

26%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

441

18%

3 Bank Fraud2

361

15%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

238

10%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

195

8%

6 Loan Fraud

104

4%

Other

661

27%

Attempted Identity Theft

151

6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,409 victims reporting from Connecticut. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Connecticut reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 26 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 120 of 285
DELAWARE Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,944

Fraud Complaints from Delaware Consumers = 1,341

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Delaware Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

146

11%

2 Internet Services

122

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

102

8%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

92

7%

5 Internet Auctions

88

7%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Delaware consumers (1,341).

Amount Paid Reported by Delaware Consumers
TCr2oeAotp1mvao,el3prrtNl4aeagdo1icen.biottayesfmdDoeiunlPTn$aPatwo1iptud,aaa2erlieR2ndAc3etieomps,6nobAos5rauurt8sienmzedtdoernosan(RT1vteh,o.1petA8aot7rolrp)1ttC.aia,nlo1igonm8,uA7pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle8aiAoi9vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw0rtaa3Psg1aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Delaware Victims = 603

Identity Theft Types Reported by Delaware Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 139 138 72 58
57 27 154 31

Percentage1 23% 23% 12% 10%
9% 4% 26% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 603 victims reporting from Delaware. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Delaware reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 27 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 121 of 285
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,159

Fraud Complaints from District of Columbia Consumers = 1,375

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for District of Columbia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

154

11%

2 Internet Services

137

10%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

93

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

84

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

71

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from District of Columbia consumers (1,375).
Amount Paid Reported by District of Columbia Consumers
TCrm2oeAotip1mlvaol,eli3prortNl7aenagdo5icoen.birottayesmfmdDooriiunsePTnt$.rPato3iciptud,taa6eoliR8ndfA1etCiemps,o3obAol2rauurt6smienzedtbdoinoaancRTovtehno.pestAaoutrolrmp1ttCaiea,nlor1isgonm8(,uA7p1mN,ml1abo8ite.n7rP1t)osd.5f-Tf1Prw5aReou2red1ccpeo1connoratsmtauirncpgmghle8aeiAoi6vrnsfe%mtsrCdeowopoumohnnretptrAelPedapaairanimindltos2aum8n,Aot2upm0naA$o1tidv3up6e,naw1ritada0Psg1oaefid$21

Identity Theft Complaints from District of Columbia Victims = 784

Identity Theft Types Reported by District of Columbia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

193

25%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

136

17%

3 Bank Fraud2

130

17%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

92

12%

5 Loan Fraud

52

7%

6 Employment-Related Fraud

43

5%

Other

198

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

41

5%

1Percentages are based on the 784 victims reporting from the District of Columbia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from the District of Columbia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 28 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 122 of 285
FLORIDA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 52,297

Fraud Complaints from Florida Consumers = 33,027

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Florida Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

3,572

11%

2 Internet Services

2,691

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

2,210

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,894

6%

5 Internet Auctions

1,763

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Florida consumers (33,027).

Amount Paid Reported by Florida Consumers
TCrm2oeAo3tpomv3aorele,pr0r.tNlaea2gdoic7en.biottayesfmdFolioun$PTrni6Patdo0ipatudaa,ec4liRond6Aneti9empssu,ob2Aomrau8rtseien5zerdtsdon(o2an9RT,vt3eho.8petA6aot)rolr2.pttC9aiaEnlo,i3gionmg8,uAhpm6Ntmlacbooite.nnrP1tsosdu5fm-f1Pre5aRreu2sred1rcpee1copnoroatmtrairtncpgeghled8aiAoi9vanfne%mtsCdaowmooumhonneutprAnlPeatpaaiprnimiadltios2du8on,Aft2$pm01aA$o1imdv2u6e,nwi0rltlaa5iPosg8naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Florida Victims = 19,270

Identity Theft Types Reported by Florida Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 4,406 3,090
2,878 2,753 1,744
967 5,186 1,020

Percentage1 23% 16%
15% 14% 9% 5% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 19,270 victims reporting from Florida. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Florida reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 29 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 123 of 285
GEORGIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 24,680

Fraud Complaints from Georgia Consumers = 15,936

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Georgia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,617

10%

2 Internet Services

1,182

7%

3 Foreign Money Offers

975

6%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

891

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

779

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Georgia consumers (15,936).

Amount Paid Reported by Georgia Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tpomv5aorele,pr9r.tNlaea3gdoic6en.biottayesfmdGoieun$oPTnr2Patog1iptuidaaa,e5liRcnd4Aoeti4nempss,ob9uAoramu1rtsien1zeedtrdosno(an1RT4vte,ho.4pet0Aaot2rolr1)pttC.4aianlo,Ti4gonmw0,uApom2Nmlacbooite.nnrP1tsosd5ufm-f1Pre5aRreu2sred1rcpee1copnoroatmtarirtncpgeghled9aiAoi0vanfne%mtsCdaowmooumhonneutprAnlPeatpaaiprnimiadltios2du8on,Aft2$pm01aA$o1imdv1u6e,nwi4rltlaa9iPosg6naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Georgia Victims = 8,744

Identity Theft Types Reported by Georgia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,918 1,453 1,405
1,311 793 445
2,253 448

Percentage1 22% 17% 16%
15% 9% 5% 26% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 8,744 victims reporting from Georgia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Georgia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 30 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 124 of 285
HAWAII Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,109

Fraud Complaints from Hawaii Consumers = 2,520

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Hawaii Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

341

14%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

206

8%

3 Internet Services

198

8%

4 Internet Auctions

168

7%

5 Foreign Money Offers

166

7%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Hawaii consumers (2,520).

Amount Paid Reported by Hawaii Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el5prrtNl2aeagdo0icen.biottayesfmdHoiaunwPTn$Patao3iiptud,iaa2ecliR6ondAn4etiempss,u4obAom1raurt8seienzerdtsdon(o2an,R2Tvt5eho.2petA)aot.rolrp2ttCaia,nlo2igonm5,uA2pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle8aiAoi9vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw4rtaa5Psg0aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Hawaii Victims = 589

Identity Theft Types Reported by Hawaii Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 219
99 76 37 25 25 162 21

Percentage1 37%
17% 13% 6% 4% 4% 28% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 589 victims reporting from Hawaii. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Hawaii reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 31 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 125 of 285
IDAHO Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,300

Fraud Complaints from Idaho Consumers = 2,563

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Idaho Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

276

11%

2 Internet Services

229

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

148

6%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

134

5%

5 Internet Auctions

129

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Idaho consumers (2,563).

Amount Paid Reported by Idaho Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el5prrtNl6aeagdo3icen.biottayesfmdIdoiaunPhTn$oPato2iptucd,aa3oeliRn8ndAs3etuiemps,m1obAo2reaurtr9siesnzedt(do2no,3anR1Tvt8eho.)pe.tAaotrolrp2ttCaia,nlo3igonm1,uA8pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi0vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw0rtaa2Psg8aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Idaho Victims = 737

Identity Theft Types Reported by Idaho Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 160 136 84
80 54 32 227 39

Percentage1 22% 18% 11%
11% 7% 4% 31% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 737 victims reporting from Idaho. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 13% of victims from Idaho reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 32 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 126 of 285
ILLINOIS Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 31,906

Fraud Complaints from Illinois Consumers = 21,602

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Illinois Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,227

10%

2 Internet Services

1,588

7%

3 Computer Equipment and Software

1,173

5%

4 Foreign Money Offers

1,105

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,058

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Illinois consumers (21,602).

Amount Paid Reported by Illinois Consumers
TCrm2oeAo2tpomv1aorele,pr6r.tNlaea0gdoic2en.biottayesfmdIloliuin$nPTno3Patoi8ipstudaa,ec5liRond8Aneti5esmpsu,ob9Aomrau2rtesien8zerdtsdo(no1an9RT,vt8eho.0petA7aot)rolr1.pttC9aiaSnlo,ii8gonmx0,uAcpm7Nomlanboitse.nurP1tmosd5fe-rf1sPr5aReru2eredp1cpoe1conrortatmetairdncpgaghle9aniAoi2vnafe%mtmsCdoowoouumhnnnettprAplPeapaaaiirnimdidltoso2uf8n$,At12pmm0aA$o1iidv1ul6le,niw9rotaan4Psg8oaerid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Illinois Victims = 10,304

Identity Theft Types Reported by Illinois Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,345 1,945 1,460 1,287
1,271 551
2,481 526

Percentage1 23% 19% 14% 12%
12% 5% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 10,304 victims reporting from Illinois. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Illinois reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 33 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 127 of 285
INDIANA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 14,431

Fraud Complaints from Indiana Consumers = 10,405

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Indiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,068

10%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,012

10%

3 Internet Services

716

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

676

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

419

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Indiana consumers (10,405).

Amount Paid Reported by Indiana Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tpomv0aorele,pr4r.tNlaea0gdoic5en.biottayesfmdInoidun$PTina1Paton8iptuadaa,e6cliRndo0Aetni7empss,uob7Aomrau8rtsieen6zerdtdos n(o9anR,T4vteh6o.pe3tAao)t.rolrp9ttCTaia,nlwo4igonm6o,uA3pcmNmloabonite.snrPu1tmosd5fe-f1rPrs5aReru2reed1cppe1oconorrattmteairdncpgghlea9aniAoi1vnfea%mtmsCdowooouumhnnnetptrAlPepapaaairniimiddltos2ou8fn,$At12pm0maA$o1idv1iu6lel,nwi9rotaa6nPsg6oaerid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Indiana Victims = 4,026

Identity Theft Types Reported by Indiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,007 806
549 423 418 195 965 205

Percentage1 25% 20%
14% 11% 10% 5% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,026 victims reporting from Indiana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Indiana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 34 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 128 of 285
IOWA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 5,077

Fraud Complaints from Iowa Consumers = 4,014

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Iowa Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

503

13%

2 Internet Services

299

7%

3 Internet Auctions

223

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

221

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

212

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Iowa consumers (4,014).

Amount Paid Reported by Iowa Consumers
TCr2oeAotp4mvao,el0prrtNl1aeagdo4icen.biottayesfmdIooiwunPTn$aPato2ciptud,oaa6enliR0ndsAu4etiempms,9obAoe8rarurts7sienze(dtdo3,no6an5RT4vteh)o..petAaotrolrp3ttCaia,nlo6igonm5,uA4pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi1vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aAo1i$dvu67enwr1taa3Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Iowa Victims = 1,063

Identity Theft Types Reported by Iowa Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 296 180
137 110 77
46 278
54

Percentage1 28% 17%
13% 10% 7% 4% 26% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,063 victims reporting from Iowa. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Iowa reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 35 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 129 of 285
KANSAS Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 5,569

Fraud Complaints from Kansas Consumers = 3,875

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Kansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

462

12%

2 Foreign Money Offers

259

7%

3 Internet Services

252

7%

4 Internet Auctions

203

5%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

203

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Kansas consumers (3,875).

Amount Paid Reported by Kansas Consumers
TCrm2oeAotpo3mvaor,ele8prr.tNl7aeagdo5icen.biottayesfmdKoiaun$nPTns1Patoa6iptusdaa,ec5liRond1Aneti8empssu,ob6Aomrau7rtseien3zerdtsdon(o3an,R5Tvt0eho.0petA)aot.rolrp3ttTCaia,nhlo5igronm0e,uAe0pmNcmlabooiten.nrPs1tuosd5mf-f1ePrr5aRseu2rerd1cepep1conooratrmtatirencpgdghle9aaiAoi0vnnfe%mtasCdmowoouomhnnuetpnrAltPeappaairanimidiltdos2uo8nf,At$2pm10aA$om1idv4u6ie,nlw7rltiaa2oPsgn0aeoidr 2

Identity Theft Complaints from Kansas Victims = 1,694

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 424
288 268 220 133
82 432
88

Percentage1 25%
17% 16% 13% 8% 5% 26% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,694 victims reporting from Kansas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Kansas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 36 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 130 of 285
KENTUCKY Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,338

Fraud Complaints from Kentucky Consumers = 5,502

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Kentucky Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

696

13%

2 Internet Services

403

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

356

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

319

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

309

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Kentucky consumers (5,502).

Amount Paid Reported by Kentucky Consumers
TCr2oeAotp5mvao,el5prrtNl0aeagdo2icen.biottayesfmdKoieunnPTn$tPatuo6ipctud,aak7eliRy7ndA7ectiempos,9nobAos8rauurt7sienmzedtdoenrosanR(T4vteho,.9petA8aot7rolrp4)ttC.aia,nlo9iOgonm8n,uA7pemNmlacbooite.nnrP1tsosd5ufm-f1Pre5aRreu2rerd1ecppe1coonorartmttairencpgdghle9aaiAoi1vnnfe%mtasCdmowoouomhnnuetnprAtlPeappaairanimidiltdos2uo8nf,At$2pm10aA.$6o1idv1u6me,nw3ritlaa5lPsgi9oaenid. 2

Identity Theft Complaints from Kentucky Victims = 1,836

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kentucky Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 484 396
251 178 156
77 446 101

Percentage1 26% 22%
14% 10% 8% 4% 24% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 1,836 victims reporting from Kentucky. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Kentucky reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 37 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 131 of 285
LOUISIANA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,993

Fraud Complaints from Louisiana Consumers = 5,319

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Louisiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

658

12%

2 Foreign Money Offers

350

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

347

7%

4 Internet Services

308

6%

5 Internet Auctions

264

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Louisiana consumers (5,319).

Amount Paid Reported by Louisiana Consumers
TCrm2oeAotpo5mvaor,ele3prr.tNl1aeagdo9icen.biottayesfmdLooiun$uPTni1Patsoi0iptuadaa,ne6liRand7Aetci9empos,onb4Aorsau3rutsien8mzedtdoenrosanR(Tv4teho,.p8etA8aot3rolrp4t)tCai.a,nlo8iTgonm8w,uA3pmNomlabociteo.nrPn1tossd5uf-mf1Pr5eaReru2resd1cpre1ceonopratmotairrncpgteghle9adiAoi2vnafe%mntsCdoawomoumhnnoetpurAlPenaptaairnpimidlatos2idu8no,Atf2pm$0aA$1o1idv2um6e,nw1ritlaa8lPisgo7aenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Louisiana Victims = 2,674

Identity Theft Types Reported by Louisiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 597 579 488
346 203 136 561 129

Percentage1 22% 22% 18%
13% 8% 5% 21% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,674 victims reporting from Louisiana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Louisiana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 38 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 132 of 285
MAINE Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,641

Fraud Complaints from Maine Consumers = 2,111

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Maine Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

435

21%

2 Internet Services

145

7%

3 Foreign Money Offers

142

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

136

6%

5 Internet Auctions

97

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Maine consumers (2,111).

Amount Paid Reported by Maine Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el1prrtNl1aeagdo1icen.biottayesfmdMoiuanPTin$nPato9eiptud,aca4eoliR3ndnA8etsiempsu,7ombAo3rauert3sirenzesdtdo(n1o,an8RT7vteh3o.pe)tA.aotrolrOp1ttCaian,nlo8eigonm7c,uA3opmNnmlabositue.nmrP1tosde5fr-f1rPre5aRpeu2roed1cprte1coenordatmtaiarncpgnghle8aaiAoi9mvnfe%mtosCduownooutmhnnpetparAlPeiadpaairnoimidltfos2$u88n,Atm2pmi0aAl$ol1iidv5uo6e,nnw0r.taa3Psg9aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Maine Victims = 530

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maine Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 162 86
75 29 24 22 152 36

Percentage1 31% 16%
14% 5% 5% 4% 29% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 530 victims reporting from Maine. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Maine reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 39 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 133 of 285
MARYLAND Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 16,566

Fraud Complaints from Maryland Consumers = 11,745

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Maryland Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,314

11%

2 Foreign Money Offers

980

8%

3 Internet Services

905

8%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

640

5%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

622

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Maryland consumers (11,745).

Amount Paid Reported by Maryland Consumers
TCro2oeAo1rtpmv1amoel,pro7rtNlarea4egdoic.5en.biottayesfmdMoiuan$PTrny1Patol7ipatudana,e2liRdnd2Aecti3empos,nob5Aosrau0urtsienm0zedtdoenrosanR(T1vteho0.pet,A5aot4rolr1p9ttC0aia)nlo.,i5gonmT4,uApwm9Nmloaboitec.nrPo1tnosd5sf-uf1mPr5aReeu2rerd1cpse1cornoeratpmtaironcpgrghlte9aeiAoid0vnfe%matsCdnowoaoummhnnetporAluPeapnaairtnimidlptosa2ui8dn,Ato2pmf0aA$$o1i1dv1u6e,mnw6rtaia3lPsgl3iaeoind2

Identity Theft Complaints from Maryland Victims = 4,821

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maryland Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,362 908
741 389 295 239 1,224 265

Percentage1 28% 19%
15% 8% 6% 5% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,821 victims reporting from Maryland. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Maryland reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 40 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 134 of 285
MASSACHUSETTS Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 14,058

Fraud Complaints from Massachusetts Consumers = 9,766

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Massachusetts Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,196

12%

2 Internet Services

802

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

678

7%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

673

7%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

491

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Massachusetts consumers (9,766).
Amount Paid Reported by Massachusetts Consumers
TCrm2oeAotip9mlvaol,eli7prortNl6aenagdo6icoen.birottayesmfmdMooriuane$PTsn.1sPatoa3iptucdaa,he3liRund4Asetie2empst,tob7Aosrau6rctsieno6zedtndosnouanmRTvteeho.rpestAaot(rolr8p8ttC,ai7a,nlo73igonm83,u)A8p.mNmlaTboithe.nrPr1teosd5ef-cf1oPr5aRneu2sredu1cpme1conoreatmtrairsncpgrghlee8aipAoi9vnofe%mtrsCdteowodoumhnnaentprAlPeaapmaairnimiodltuos2nu8tn,Apt2apm0iaA$do1idv1uo6e,nfw5rt$aa21Psg7aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Massachusetts Victims = 4,292

Identity Theft Types Reported by Massachusetts Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,266

29%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

791

18%

3 Bank Fraud2

553

13%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

434

10%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

335

8%

6 Loan Fraud

182

4%

Other

1,081

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

275

6%

1Percentages are based on the 4,292 victims reporting from Massachusetts. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Massachusetts reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 41 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 135 of 285
MICHIGAN Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 21,859

Fraud Complaints from Michigan Consumers = 14,780

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Michigan Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,617

11%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,040

7%

3 Internet Services

974

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

775

5%

5 Multi-Level Mktg/Pyramids/Chain Letters

727

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Michigan consumers (14,780).

Amount Paid Reported by Michigan Consumers
TCro2oeAo1rtpmv4amoel,pro7rtNlarea8egdoic.0en.biottayesfmdMoiuin$cPTnh1Patoi8igptudaaa,e4lniRnd9Aceti5eomps,nob2Aosrau3urtsienm2zedtdoenrosanR(T1vteh2o.pe,tA7aot8rolr1p4ttC2ai)an.lo,i7gonmT8,uApwm4Nmloaboitec.nroP1tnosd5sf-uf1mPr5aReeu2rerd1scpe1corneoraptmtaironcpgrgthle8eaidAoi6vnfe%matsCdnowoaoummhnnetporAulPeapnaaitrnimidpltosa2iu8dn,Ato2fpm0aA$$o1i1dv1u6em,nw4rtiaa4lPsgl7iaeoind2

Identity Theft Complaints from Michigan Victims = 7,079

Identity Theft Types Reported by Michigan Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Loan Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,772 1,510 857
775 480 445 1,782 458

Percentage1 25% 21% 12%
11% 7% 6% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 7,079 victims reporting from Michigan. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Michigan reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 42 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 136 of 285
MINNESOTA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 12,245

Fraud Complaints from Minnesota Consumers = 9,388

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Minnesota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

915

10%

2 Internet Services

654

7%

3 Foreign Money Offers

490

5%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

483

5%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

474

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Minnesota consumers (9,388).

Amount Paid Reported by Minnesota Consumers
TCr2oeAotp9mvao,el3prrtNl8aeagdo8icen.biottayesfmdMoiuinnPTn$nPato8eiptud,saa5oeliRt8ndaA3etiecmps,o5obAon4rausrt5suienzemdtdoenoransRT(vt8eho.p,et6Aaot5rolr6p8ttC)aia,n.lo6igonmO5,uA6npmNemlabocite.norP1ntosds5fu-mf1Pr5aReeu2rred1rcpee1copnoroatmtrairtncpgeghlde9aiAoi2avnnfe%mtsCdaomwooumhonneutprAnlPetapaaiprnimiadltiosd2u8on,Aft2$pm01aAo1i$mdvu69eniwrl9tlaai2Posgnae.id2

Identity Theft Complaints from Minnesota Victims = 2,857

Identity Theft Types Reported by Minnesota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 779
546 390 297 207 118 727 180

Percentage1 27%
19% 14% 10% 7% 4% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,857 victims reporting from Minnesota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Minnesota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 43 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 137 of 285
MISSISSIPPI Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 4,317

Fraud Complaints from Mississippi Consumers = 2,644

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Mississippi Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

312

12%

2 Internet Services

212

8%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

189

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

162

6%

5 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

130

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Mississippi consumers (2,644).

Amount Paid Reported by Mississippi Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el6prrtNl4aeagdo4icen.biottayesfmdMoiuinsPTn$sPatio2siptud,saa6iepliR7ndpA9etiiemps,c4oobAo3rnaurt9ssienzeudtdomnoeanrRsTvt(eho.2petA,ao4trolr0p2ttC6aia,n)lo4.igonm0,uA6pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi1vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw1rtaa1Psg4aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Mississippi Victims = 1,673

Identity Theft Types Reported by Mississippi Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 379 327 288
204 142
76 417
57

Percentage1 23% 20% 17%
12% 8% 5% 25% 3%

1Percentages are based on the 1,673 victims reporting from Mississippi. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Mississippi reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 44 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 138 of 285
MISSOURI Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 16,874

Fraud Complaints from Missouri Consumers = 12,912

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Missouri Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,214

9%

2 Internet Services

807

6%

3 Foreign Money Offers

624

5%

4 Health Care

619

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

595

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Missouri consumers (12,912).

Amount Paid Reported by Missouri Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1topmv2aroele,pr9r.tNlaea1gdoic2en.biottayesfmdMoiuin$sPTns2Patoo0iputudaa,re7iliRnd5cAetoi8empsn,osb2Aoruau7rtmsien8zedetdornsoan(R1Tvt1eho.,pe9tAao7trolr19pttC)1aia.nlo,i9gTonm7,uwApm9Nomlabocite.norP1ntosds5fu-mf1Pr5aReeu2rresd1cpre1coenorpatmtoairrncpgtgehle9adiAoi3vnafe%mtnsCdoawooummhnnoetpurAlPenapatairnimpidltaos2idu8n,oAtf2pm$0aA$1o1idv1u6me,nw7ritlaa3lPsgi3oaenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Missouri Victims = 3,962

Identity Theft Types Reported by Missouri Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,048 681
619 303 285 194 1,084 256

Percentage1 26% 17%
16% 8% 7% 5% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,962 victims reporting from Missouri. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Missouri reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 45 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 139 of 285
MONTANA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,887

Fraud Complaints from Montana Consumers = 1,496

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Montana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

207

14%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

117

8%

3 Internet Services

108

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

97

6%

5 Internet Auctions

71

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Montana consumers (1,496).

Amount Paid Reported by Montana Consumers
TCr2oeAotp1mvao,el4prrtNl9aeagdo6icen.biottayesfmdMoiuonPTnn$Patto1aiptud,naa2ealiR9ndcA8etoiemps,n9osbAo6ruaurtm9sienzedetdornsoan(R1Tvt,eh3o.pe3tAao8trolr)p1.ttCaia,nlo3igonm3,uA8pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle8aiAoi9vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aAo1i$dvu69enwr7taa1Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Montana Victims = 391

Identity Theft Types Reported by Montana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 99 72
55 29 23 17 116 21

Percentage1 25% 18%
14% 7% 6% 4% 30% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 391 victims reporting from Montana. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 13% of victims from Montana reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 46 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 140 of 285
NEBRASKA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,624

Fraud Complaints from Nebraska Consumers = 2,831

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Nebraska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

310

11%

2 Internet Services

219

8%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

158

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

136

5%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

136

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Nebraska consumers (2,831).

Amount Paid Reported by Nebraska Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el8prrtNl3aeagdo1icen.biottayesfmdNoeiunbPTn$rPatoa2ipstud,aka2elaiR8ndAc6etioemps,n8obAos0rauurt4simenzedtdoernosan(RT2vteh,o.6pet1Aaot2rolr)p2ttC.aia,nlo6igonm1,uA2pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi2vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aAo1i$dvu68enwr7taa5Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Nebraska Victims = 793

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nebraska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 215 120
115 102
60 29 192 44

Percentage1 27% 15%
15% 13% 8% 4% 24% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 793 victims reporting from Nebraska. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 12% of victims from Nebraska reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 47 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 141 of 285
NEVADA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 8,068

Fraud Complaints from Nevada Consumers = 5,138

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Nevada Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

578

11%

2 Internet Services

393

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

358

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

311

6%

5 Internet Auctions

286

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Nevada consumers (5,138).

Amount Paid Reported by Nevada Consumers
TCrm2oeAotop5mvaro,ele1prr.tNl3aeagdo8icen.biottayesfmdNoieun$vPTna1Patod2iptudaaa,e3lciRndo7Aetni7empss,oub2Aormau6rtsiene7zedrtdosno(4anR,T6vteh0o.pe2tAao)t.rolrp4ttCTaia,nlo6higonmr0e,uA2pemNmlcabooite.nnrP1stosud5fm-f1ePr5arResu2redr1cpee1copnoroatmtrairtnecpgdghle9aiaAoi0vnnfe%mtsCdaomwooumohnnuetpnrAlPetapapairnimaidltidos2u8on,fAt2$pm10aA$o1imdv2u6ei,nwl6rltaia9oPsg0naeiodr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Nevada Victims = 2,930

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nevada Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 702 491 462
432 218 185 790 148

Percentage1 24% 17% 16%
15% 7% 6% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,930 victims reporting from Nevada. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Nevada reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 48 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 142 of 285
NEW HAMPSHIRE Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,345

Fraud Complaints from New Hampshire Consumers = 2,702

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Hampshire Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

336

12%

2 Internet Services

205

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

190

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

182

7%

5 Internet Auctions

130

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Hampshire consumers (2,702).
Amount Paid Reported by New Hampshire Consumers
TCrm2oeAotip2mlvaol,eli7prortNl0aneagdo.2icen.biottayesfmdNoieunwPTn$Pato2Hiptud,aaa9elmiR3ndAp0etiempss,h5obAoi4rraurte2sienzecdtdoonnoasnuRTvtmeho.peetAarotsrolrp2t(tCai2a,nlo4,i4gonm33,uA33pmN)mla.boite.OnrP1tnosd5ef-cf1Pro5aRneu2rsed1ucpem1conoreatmtrairncrpgeghle9paiAoi0ovnfre%mttsCdeodwooumahnnnetprAalPeampaairnoimidlutos2nut8np,Ata2pmi0daA$o1iodv1u6fe,nw2r$taa10Psg.43aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from New Hampshire Victims = 643

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Hampshire Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

186

29%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

103

16%

3 Bank Fraud2

73

11%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

37

6%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

35

5%

6 Loan Fraud

32

5%

Other

216

34%

Attempted Identity Theft

47

7%

1Percentages are based on the 643 victims reporting from New Hampshire. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from New Hampshire reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 49 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 143 of 285
NEW JERSEY Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 21,406

Fraud Complaints from New Jersey Consumers = 14,542

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Jersey Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,772

12%

2 Internet Services

1,202

8%

3 Computer Equipment and Software

884

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

807

6%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

766

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Jersey consumers (14,542).

Amount Paid Reported by New Jersey Consumers
TCr2oeAo1tpmv4aoel,pr5rtNlaea4gdoic2en.biottayesfmdNoieun$wPTn3PatoJ2iptuedaa,re3lsiRnde2Aeyti5empsc,ob3Aooranu7rtsisen8zeudtdomnoeanrRsTvteh(o.1petA3aot,rolr11pttC39aian9lo,i1go)nm.9,uApmO9Nmlanboitee.nrP1ctosdo5fn-fs1Pru5aRmeu2rede1cpre1cornoreatmtpairnocpgrghle9taeiAoi1vdnfe%mtasCdnowoouamhnnmetprAolPeuapaanirnimtidltpos2au8ind,Ato2pmf0aA$o$1idv2u26e,nwm4rtaa4iPsgl9laeioidn2.

Identity Theft Complaints from New Jersey Victims = 6,864

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Jersey Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,909 1,291
818 687 624 305 1,765 408

Percentage1 28% 19%
12% 10% 9% 4% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 6,864 victims reporting from New Jersey. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from New Jersey reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 50 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 144 of 285
NEW MEXICO Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 4,420

Fraud Complaints from New Mexico Consumers = 2,697

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New Mexico Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

307

11%

2 Internet Services

221

8%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

186

7%

4 Foreign Money Offers

158

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

114

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New Mexico consumers (2,697).

Amount Paid Reported by New Mexico Consumers
TCr2oAeotp2mvao,el6prrtNl9aeagdo7icen.biottayesfmdNoieunwPTn$Pato4Miptud,aa2eeliRx5ndAi9etciempso,9obAoc0rauort2sinenzedstdounmoaneRTrvtesho.pe(tA2aotr,olr4p2ttC2aia,nl3o4igo)nm2.,uA3pmNOmlabonitee.nrP1tcosdo5fn-f1sPru5aRemu2red1ecpre1conroreatmtpairnocpggrhle9atieAoi0vndfe%mtasCdnowoouamhnnmetprAolPeaupaainrnimtidltpos2au8ind,At2opmf0aA$o1$idv1u16e,nw7mrtaa5iPsgl8laeioidn2.

Identity Theft Complaints from New Mexico Victims = 1,723

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Mexico Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Employment-Related Fraud

353

20%

2 Credit Card Fraud

350

20%

3 Bank Fraud2

253

15%

4 Phone or Utilities Fraud

194

11%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

163

9%

6 Loan Fraud

84

5%

Other

518

30%

Attempted Identity Theft

85

5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,723 victims reporting from New Mexico. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from New Mexico reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 51 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 145 of 285
NEW YORK Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 46,538

Fraud Complaints from New York Consumers = 27,219

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for New York Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

3,785

14%

2 Internet Services

2,332

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

1,720

6%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

1,676

6%

5 Internet Auctions

1,659

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from New York consumers (27,219).

Amount Paid Reported by New York Consumers
TCro2oeAo2rtpmv7amoel,pro2rtNlarea1egdoic.9en.biottayesfmdNoieun$wPTn4PatoY6iptudaoa,e1lirRndk0Aeti3cempso,ob8Aonraus4rtsuien2zemdtdoenoransRT(vt2eho.p4etA,aot3rolr22pttC49aianl)o,i.3gonm2,uNApm9Nimlnaboeite.nrPc1toosd5nf-sf1uPr5aRmeu2reed1cpres1conorraetmtaiprncpgoghler8atiAoie9vndfe%mtsCdaonwooumahnnmetprAolPeapuaainrnimidtltosp2ua8in,dAt2opm0faA$o1i$dv1u61e,nw8rmtaa9Pisgl5aleiiodn2

Identity Theft Complaints from New York Victims = 19,319

Identity Theft Types Reported by New York Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 5,404 4,934 2,096
1,942 1,371
901 4,078 1,035

Percentage1 28% 26% 11%
10% 7% 5% 21% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 19,319 victims reporting from New York. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from New York reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 52 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 146 of 285
NORTH CAROLINA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 20,915

Fraud Complaints from North Carolina Consumers = 14,846

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for North Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,496

10%

2 Internet Services

1,104

7%

3 Foreign Money Offers

801

5%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

765

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

758

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from North Carolina consumers (14,846).
Amount Paid Reported by North Carolina Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tipmlv4aoleli,pro8rtNlaena4gdoico6en.birottayesmfmdNoorioune$PrTn.t2Pahto0iptudCaa,e8aliRndr1Aoeti6elmpsi,nob3Aoarau1rtscien8zeodtdonnsouanRmTvteheo.pretAsaot(rolr11pttC3ai3anlo,,i66gonm00,uAp7m7N)mla.boite.FnrP1otosdu5fr-f1cPr5oaRenu2resd1cpue1comnoratemtairrnscpgghler9aeiAoi2vpnfe%omtsCdrtoweooudmhnneatprAnlPeapaaaimrnimidltoos2uu8nn,tAtp2pma0aA$io1iddv1u6oe,nw5rftaa3$Psg10aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from North Carolina Victims = 6,069

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,284

21%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

1,184

20%

3 Bank Fraud2

819

13%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

717

12%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

687

11%

6 Loan Fraud

307

5%

Other

1,557

26%

Attempted Identity Theft

321

5%

1Percentages are based on the 6,069 victims reporting from North Carolina. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from North Carolina reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 53 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 147 of 285
NORTH DAKOTA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 908

Fraud Complaints from North Dakota Consumers = 726

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for North Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

87

12%

2 Internet Auctions

56

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

38

5%

4 Internet Services

36

5%

5 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

31

4%

6 Computer Equipment and Software

31

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from North Dakota consumers (726).

Amount Paid Reported by North Dakota Consumers
TCr2oeAotpmva7oelpr2rtNlae6agdoicen.biottayesfmdNooiunPrTntPah$toip5tudDaa4elaiRnd0kAet,oie4mpstao4bAorc6aurtosienzendtdosunomanReTvtreho.spetA(aot6rolr6pttC0ai6anl)o6i.gonm0,uApmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi1vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aAo1i$dvu68enwr1taa9Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from North Dakota Victims = 182

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

46

25%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

32

18%

3 Bank Fraud2

21

12%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

16

9%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

13

7%

6 Loan Fraud

7

4%

Other

56

31%

Attempted Identity Theft

13

7%

1Percentages are based on the 182 victims reporting from North Dakota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from North Dakota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 54 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 148 of 285
OHIO Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 26,142

Fraud Complaints from Ohio Consumers = 18,964

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Ohio Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,213

12%

2 Internet Services

1,274

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,135

6%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

1,028

5%

5 Foreign Money Offers

885

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Ohio consumers (18,964).

Amount Paid Reported by Ohio Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tpomv8aorele,pr9r.tNlaea6gdoic4en.biottayesfmdOoihun$PiTno1Patoc9iptudoaa,e3nliRnds2Aueti4empms,ob0Aoeraru1rtssien5ze(dtdo17no,an3RT1vteh8o.pe)tA.aotrolr1TpttC7haianlro,ie3gonme1,uApcm8Nmloabonite.snrPu1tmosd5fe-f1rPrs5aReru2reed1cppe1coonorrattmteairdncpgghlea9aniAoi1vnfea%mtmsCdowooouumhnnnetptrAlPepapaaairniimiddltos2ou8fn,$At12pm0maA$o1idv1iu6lel,nwi1rotaa1nPsg6oaerid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Ohio Victims = 7,178

Identity Theft Types Reported by Ohio Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,034 1,631
889 692 406 281 1,753 410

Percentage1 28% 23%
12% 10% 6% 4% 24% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 7,178 victims reporting from Ohio. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Ohio reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 55 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 149 of 285
OKLAHOMA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 7,140

Fraud Complaints from Oklahoma Consumers = 4,828

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Oklahoma Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

501

10%

2 Internet Services

350

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

281

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

241

5%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

237

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Oklahoma consumers (4,828).

Amount Paid Reported by Oklahoma Consumers
TCrm2oeAotop4mvaro,ele8prr.tNl2aeagdo8icen.biottayesfmdOoikunPlTn$aPatho5ipotud,aa7meliR1ndaA1eticemps,o9obAon7rausrt5suienzemdtdoenorasnRT(vt4eho.p,et4Aao0trolr1p4ttC)aia,.nlo4igonmT0,uAw1pmNmloabocite.norP1tnosd5sfu-f1mPr5aReeu2rreds1cper1coenorpatmtoairncrpgtghlee9adiAoi1vnfae%mtnsCdowaooummhnneotprAulPeanpaaitrnimipdltaos2iud8n,Aot2fpm0$aA$o11idv1u6me,nw2ritaal9lPsgi8oaenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Oklahoma Victims = 2,312

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oklahoma Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 538 412
358 303 242 105 553 116

Percentage1 23% 18%
15% 13% 10% 5% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,312 victims reporting from Oklahoma. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Oklahoma reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 56 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 150 of 285
OREGON Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 10,256

Fraud Complaints from Oregon Consumers = 7,704

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Oregon Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

753

10%

2 Internet Services

671

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

551

7%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

374

5%

5 Internet Auctions

330

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Oregon consumers (7,704).

Amount Paid Reported by Oregon Consumers
TCrm2oeAotpo7mvaor,ele7prr.tNl0aeagdo4icen.biottayesfmdOoirune$PTng1Patoo0iptundaa,e2cliRndo5Aetni8empss,uob9Aomrau6rtsieen5zerdtdos n(o6anR,T9vteh3o.pe1tAao)t.rolrp6ttCTaia,nlho9igornm3e,uA1epmNmlcabooite.nnrPs1tuosd5mf-f1ePr5raResu2rerd1cpee1cponooratmtrairtnecpgdghle9aiaAoi0vnnfe%mtsaCdomwoouomhnnuetpnrAlPetapapairniamidlitdos2u8onf,At$2pm10aA$o1imdv1u6ei,nwl4rltiaa8oPsg0naeoidr2

Identity Theft Complaints from Oregon Victims = 2,552

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oregon Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 591
433 399 236 136 118 766 152

Percentage1 23%
17% 16% 9% 5% 5% 30% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,552 victims reporting from Oregon. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Oregon reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 57 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 151 of 285
PENNSYLVANIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 28,213

Fraud Complaints from Pennsylvania Consumers = 19,197

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Pennsylvania Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

2,505

13%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,599

8%

3 Internet Services

1,419

7%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

1,153

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

1,032

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Pennsylvania consumers (19,197).
Amount Paid Reported by Pennsylvania Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tipmlv9aoleli,pro1rtNlaena9gdoico7en.birottayesmfmdPooeriunen$PTn.n3Patos2iyptudala,ev1liRnda6Aenti6empisa,ob6Aocrau9rotsien4nzedtsdounomanReTvtrehso.pet(Aao1trolr17pttC,7ai1anlo,7i1gonm97,u)Ap.m9NmlaTboiteh.nrPr1teosd5ef-cf1Pro5aRneu2sred1ucpme1conoreatmtrairsncpgrghle8eaipAoi9vnofe%mtrsCdtoewodoumhnnaetpnrAlPeaapamairnimidoltous2un8nt,Atp2pam0iaA$do1idv1u6oe,nwf8rt$aa7P1sg2aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Pennsylvania Victims = 9,016

Identity Theft Types Reported by Pennsylvania Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

2,424

27%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

2,106

23%

3 Bank Fraud2

1,125

12%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

848

9%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

576

6%

6 Loan Fraud

400

4%

Other

2,146

24%

Attempted Identity Theft

521

6%

1Percentages are based on the 9,016 victims reporting from Pennsylvania. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from Pennsylvania reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 58 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 152 of 285
RHODE ISLAND Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 2,103

Fraud Complaints from Rhode Island Consumers = 1,511

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Rhode Island Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

192

13%

2 Computer Equipment and Software

102

7%

3 Internet Services

101

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

89

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

83

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Rhode Island consumers (1,511).

Amount Paid Reported by Rhode Island Consumers
TCr2oeAotp1mvao,el5prrtNl1aeagdo1icen.biottayesfmdRohiunoPTn$dPato2eiptud,aIa4esliR0lndAa2etniemps,d4obAoc3raurot1siennzedtsdounomanReTvtrehso.pet(Aao1trolr,p31ttCai6a,nlo31igonm)6.,uA1pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi0vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw7rtaa6Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Rhode Island Victims = 592

Identity Theft Types Reported by Rhode Island Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

172

29%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

108

18%

3 Bank Fraud2

79

13%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

63

11%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

51

9%

6 Loan Fraud

28

5%

Other

140

24%

Attempted Identity Theft

39

7%

1Percentages are based on the 592 victims reporting from Rhode Island. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 18% of victims from Rhode Island reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 59 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 153 of 285
SOUTH CAROLINA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 8,711

Fraud Complaints from South Carolina Consumers = 6,041

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for South Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

615

10%

2 Foreign Money Offers

465

8%

3 Internet Services

439

7%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

377

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

374

6%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from South Carolina consumers (6,041).
Amount Paid Reported by South Carolina Consumers
TCrm2oeAotip6mlvaol,eli0prortNl4aneagdo.1icen.biottayesfmdSooiunuPTn$tPahto9iptudC,aa0ealiR6ndrAo4etielmps,i8nobAoa8raurt6scienzeodtdonnsouanRmTvteheo.pretAsaotr(olr5p5ttCai,a,n5lo5i0gonm08,uA8p)mN.mlaboOite.nnrP1teosd5fc-of1Prn5aRseu2ured1mcpe1coenorratmtrairencpgpghle9oaiAoi1vrntfe%emtsCddowoaounmhnneatprAmlPeapoaairnuimidlntos2tu8pna,Ati2dpm0aAo$o1ifdv1u6$e,nw6r2taa4Psg6aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from South Carolina Victims = 2,670

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

563

21%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

495

19%

3 Bank Fraud2

404

15%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

369

14%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

256

10%

6 Loan Fraud

125

5%

Other

701

26%

Attempted Identity Theft

115

4%

1Percentages are based on the 2,670 victims reporting from South Carolina. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from South Carolina reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 60 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 154 of 285
SOUTH DAKOTA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,125

Fraud Complaints from South Dakota Consumers = 880

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for South Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

108

12%

2 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

75

9%

3 Internet Services

62

7%

4 Internet Auctions

51

6%

5 Foreign Money Offers

45

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from South Dakota consumers (880).

Amount Paid Reported by South Dakota Consumers
TCr2oeAotpmva8oelpr8rtNlae0agdoicen.biottayesfmdSooiunuPTntPah$toip9tudDaa1elaiRnd6kAet,oie3mpstao2bAorc0aurtosienzendtdosunomanReTvtreho.spetA(aot7rolr8pttC1ai7anl)o8i.gonm1,uApmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle8aiAoi9vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw1rtaa7Psg3aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from South Dakota Victims = 245

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

78

32%

2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

35

14%

3 Bank Fraud2

34

14%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

22

9%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

14

6%

6 Loan Fraud

10

4%

Other

62

25%

Attempted Identity Theft

23

9%

1Percentages are based on the 245 victims reporting from South Dakota. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from South Dakota reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 61 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 155 of 285
TENNESSEE Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 13,906

Fraud Complaints from Tennessee Consumers = 9,920

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Tennessee Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,139

11%

2 Internet Services

691

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

564

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

486

5%

5 Internet Auctions

466

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Tennessee consumers (9,920).

Amount Paid Reported by Tennessee Consumers
TCro2oeAortp9mvamo,el9prortNl2areaegdo0ic.en.biottayesfmdToeiunn$PTnn1Patoe3iptusdasa,e7eliRnde8Aeti7cempso,ob1Aonraus1rtsuien7zemdtdoenorasnRT(vt9eho.p,et0Aao6trolr7p9ttC)aia,.nlo0igonmT6,uAh7pmNrmleaboeite.ncrP1toosd5nf-sf1uPrm5aReu2ered1rcpse1conroreatmtpairncopggrhle9atieAoi1vndfe%mtasCdonwoouamhnnmetprAolPeaupaainrnimtidltpos2au8ind,At2opmf0aA$o1$idv1u16e,nw5mrtaa2iPsgl1laeioidn2

Identity Theft Complaints from Tennessee Victims = 3,986

Identity Theft Types Reported by Tennessee Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 902 629 617
596 301 209 1,057 217

Percentage1 23% 16% 15%
15% 8% 5% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 3,986 victims reporting from Tennessee. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Tennessee reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 62 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 156 of 285
TEXAS Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 62,163

Fraud Complaints from Texas Consumers = 36,367

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Texas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

3,431

9%

2 Internet Services

2,785

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

2,009

6%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

1,795

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,580

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Texas consumers (36,367).

Amount Paid Reported by Texas Consumers
TCrm2oeAo3topmv6aroele,pr3r.tNlaea6gdoic7en.biottayesfmdToei$unxPTn1aPato0siptud5caaeo,liR3nndAs4etieumps3mob,Ao3reaurtr0siensze6dtdo(3no3an,R1Tvt6eho.0petA)aot.rolr3pttFC3aianilo,fi1gotnme6,uAepm0Nnmlabociteo.nrPn1tsosd5uf-mf1Pre5aReru2sred1cpre1econporatomtairrncpgteghle9daiAoi1vnafe%mntsCdaowomoumhnnoetpurAlPneaptaairpnimidlatosi2du8no,Atf2pm$0aA1$o1idv3um6e,nw1irtlaal7iPsgo7aenido2r

Identity Theft Complaints from Texas Victims = 25,796

Identity Theft Types Reported by Texas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 6,312 4,788
3,836 3,467 3,351 1,515 5,582
990

Percentage1 24% 19%
15% 13% 13% 6% 22% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 25,796 victims reporting from Texas. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Texas reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 63 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 157 of 285
UTAH Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 6,639

Fraud Complaints from Utah Consumers = 5,110

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Utah Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

463

9%

2 Internet Services

409

8%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

323

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

283

6%

5 Health Care

248

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Utah consumers (5,110).

Amount Paid Reported by Utah Consumers
TCr2oAeotp5mvao,el1prrtNl1aeagdo0icen.biottayesfmdUoitunaPTn$hPato8ciptud,oaa0enliR7ndsAu8etiemmps,8obAeo4rraurts0sienze(dtdo4,no5an9R4Tvt)eho..petAaoOtrolrnp4ttCaiea,nlo5icgonm9o,uAn4pmNsmluabomite.nrPe1torsd5fr-ef1pPr5aRoeu2rredt1cpee1dconoraatmtnairncpgaghle9maiAoi0vonfe%mutsCdnowtooupmhnnaetpirAdlPeapoaairfnimidlt$os24u8mn,Ati2lpml0aiA$oo1idv1nu6e.,nw7rtaa5Psg9aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Utah Victims = 1,529

Identity Theft Types Reported by Utah Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 368
268 203 199
85 68 455 84

Percentage1 24%
18% 13% 13% 6% 4% 30% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,529 victims reporting from Utah. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Utah reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 64 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 158 of 285
VERMONT Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,117

Fraud Complaints from Vermont Consumers = 880

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Vermont Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

116

13%

2 Internet Services

78

9%

3 Foreign Money Offers

51

6%

4 Internet Auctions

51

6%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

43

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Vermont consumers (880).

Amount Paid Reported by Vermont Consumers
TCr2oeAotpmva8oelpr8rtNlae0agdoicen.biottayesfmdVoieunrPTn$mPato2oiptud,naa5etliR1ndcA6etoiemps,n4osbAo2ruaurtm8sienzedetdornsoan(R7Tvt9eho.8petA)ao.trolrpOttCai7annlo9igeonm8,ucApmoNmlnabosite.nurPm1tosd5ef-rf1Prr5aeReup2redo1cpre1cotneoradtmtairancpgnghle9aiaAoi1vmnfe%mtosCdouwoounmhntneptprAalPeaipdaairnimiodltfos2u$8n2,Atm2pm0aiA$lo1ildv3ui6oe,nwn1rt.aa5Psg3aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Vermont Victims = 237

Identity Theft Types Reported by Vermont Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Loan Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 68 45
23 13 10
7 82 10

Percentage1 29% 19%
10% 5% 4% 3% 35% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 237 victims reporting from Vermont. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 14% of victims from Vermont reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 65 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 159 of 285
VIRGINIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 20,052

Fraud Complaints from Virginia Consumers = 14,733

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,855

13%

2 Internet Services

1,116

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

957

6%

4 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

873

6%

5 Computer Equipment and Software

775

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Virginia consumers (14,733).

Amount Paid Reported by Virginia Consumers
TCro2oAeo1rtpmv4amoel,pro7rtNlarea3egdoic.3en.biottayesfmdVoiiunr$PTgn1Paiton6iptudiaaa,e5liRcnd9Aoeti3enmps,sob1Aourau1mrtsien1zeedtdorsno(an1RT3vteh,o.0petA6aot8rolr1p)ttC3.aianlo,iT0gonmh6,uAprm8Nemleaboitec.nroP1tnosd5sf-uf1mPr5aReeu2rerd1scpe1corneoraptmtaironcpgrgthle8eaidAoi9vnfe%matsCdnowoaoummhnnetporAulPeapnaairtnimidpltosa2iu8dn,Ato2fpm0aA$$o1i1dv1u6em,nw2rtiaa7lPsgl0iaeoind2

Identity Theft Complaints from Virginia Victims = 5,319

Identity Theft Types Reported by Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,394 1,222
685 382 367 250 1,433 300

Percentage1 26% 23%
13% 7% 7% 5% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 5,319 victims reporting from Virginia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Virginia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 66 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 160 of 285
WASHINGTON Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 19,860

Fraud Complaints from Washington Consumers = 14,918

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Washington Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,404

9%

2 Internet Services

1,226

8%

3 Foreign Money Offers

893

6%

4 Computer Equipment and Software

795

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

773

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Washington consumers (14,918).

Amount Paid Reported by Washington Consumers
TCrm2oeAo1tipmlv4aoleli,pro9rtNlaena1gdoico8en.birottayesmfmdWooriuane$PTns.3hPatoi9iptundaa,eg4liRtnd1Aoetni7emps,cob6Aoorau3rntsien0szedutdomnoeanRrTsvteho.(pe1tAao3trolr1,p4ttC3ai7anlo,8i4gonm)7.,uApm8NEmlaboleite.nvrP1teosdn5f-cf1oPr5aRneu2sredu1cpme1conoreatmtrairsncpgrghlee9aipAoi0vnofe%mtrsCdteowodoumhnnaentprAlPeaapmaairnimiodltuos2nu8tn,Apt2apm0iaA$do1idv2uo6e,nfw9rt$aa21Psg5aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Washington Victims = 4,942

Identity Theft Types Reported by Washington Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Credit Card Fraud

1,174

24%

2 Bank Fraud2

951

19%

3 Phone or Utilities Fraud

813

16%

4 Employment-Related Fraud

502

10%

5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

304

6%

6 Loan Fraud

197

4%

Other

1,414

29%

Attempted Identity Theft

280

6%

1Percentages are based on the 4,942 victims reporting from Washington. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 16% of victims from Washington reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 67 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 161 of 285
WEST VIRGINIA Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 3,383

Fraud Complaints from West Virginia Consumers = 2,654

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for West Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Internet Services

420

16%

2 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

357

13%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

162

6%

4 Internet Auctions

128

5%

5 Foreign Money Offers

111

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from West Virginia consumers (2,654).
Amount Paid Reported by West Virginia Consumers
TCr2oeAotp2mvao,el6prrtNl5aeagdo4icen.biottayesfmdWoiuenPTns$tPato1iVptud,aa8ielriR2ndgA3eitinemps,i5oabAo9raucrt2sioenzedntdosnuoamnRTevtehro.psetAao(t2rolrp2,ttC1aia,n3lo1igo7nm3),uA7.pmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle8aiAoi1vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aAo1i$dvu68enwr5taa3Psgaeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from West Virginia Victims = 729

Identity Theft Types Reported by West Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type

Complaints Percentage1

1 Phone or Utilities Fraud

184

25%

2 Credit Card Fraud

178

24%

3 Bank Fraud2

102

14%

4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud

57

8%

5 Employment-Related Fraud

42

6%

6 Loan Fraud

25

3%

Other

198

27%

Attempted Identity Theft

29

4%

1Percentages are based on the 729 victims reporting from West Virginia. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 15% of victims from West Virginia reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 68 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 162 of 285
WISCONSIN Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 12,302

Fraud Complaints from Wisconsin Consumers = 9,852

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Wisconsin Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

1,078

11%

2 Internet Services

728

7%

3 Computer Equipment and Software

580

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

537

5%

5 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

410

4%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Wisconsin consumers (9,852).

Amount Paid Reported by Wisconsin Consumers
TCro2oeAortp9mvamo,el8prortNl5areaegdo2ic.en.biottayesfmdWoiuin$PsTnc1Patoo2iptundaa,es7liRindn3Aeti5ecmpso,ob1Aonrau8srtsuien5zemdtdoenoransRT(vteh9o.pe,t0Aaot0rolr7p9ttCa)ia,n.lo0igonmT0,uAh7pmNrmleaboeite.ncrP1toosd5nf-sf1uPr5maReu2reed1cprse1conorraetmtapirncpgoghler9atieAoi1vndfe%mtsCdaonwoouamhnnmetprAolPeaupaainrnimitdltpos2au8ind,At2opm0faA$o1i$dv1u61e,nw4rmtaa1iPsgl4laeioidn2

Identity Theft Complaints from Wisconsin Victims = 2,450

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wisconsin Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 635 387
373 286 239 121 617 145

Percentage1 26% 16%
15% 12% 10% 5% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,450 victims reporting from Wisconsin. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 17% of victims from Wisconsin reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 69 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 163 of 285
WYOMING Consumer Sentinel Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2007
Total Number of Fraud and Identity Theft Consumer Complaints = 1,106

Fraud Complaints from Wyoming Consumers = 884

Top Fraud Complaint Categories for Wyoming Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Shop-at-Home/Catalog Sales

109

12%

2 Internet Services

62

7%

3 Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries

54

6%

4 Foreign Money Offers

54

6%

5 Internet Auctions

44

5%

1Percentages are based on the total number of fraud complaints from Wyoming consumers (884).

Amount Paid Reported by Wyoming Consumers
TCr2oAeotpmva8oelpr8rtNlae4agdoicen.biottayesfmdWoiuynPTn$oPatmo1iptud,iaa3neliR2gndA6etciempso,0onbAo1rsaurtu5sienzmedtdoenrosanR(Tvt7eho.9pet6Aaot)rolr.pttCai7anlo9igonm6,uApmNmlaboite.nrP1tosd5f-f1Pr5aReu2red1cpe1conoratmtairncpgghle9aiAoi0vnfe%mtsCdowooumhnnetprAlPeapaairnimidltos2u8n,At2pm0aA$o1idv1u6e,nw6rtaa6Psg6aeid2

Identity Theft Complaints from Wyoming Victims = 222

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wyoming Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 47 33 30
26 14
5 71 18

Percentage1 21% 15% 14%
12% 6% 2% 32% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 222 victims reporting from Wyoming. Percentages add to more than 100 because approximately 12% of victims from Wyoming reported experiencing more than one type of identity theft. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 70 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 164 of 285

Appendix A1: The Sentinel Network
www.consumer.gov/idtheft
The Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse was launched in November 1999 and is the sole national repository of consumer complaints about identity theft. The Clearinghouse provides specific investigative material for law enforcement and broader reports that provide insight to both private and public sector partners on ways to reduce the incidence of identity theft. Information in the Clearinghouse is available to law enforcement members via Consumer Sentinel, the secure, password-protected government Web site. This access enables law enforcers to readily spot identity theft problems in their own backyards, and to coordinate with other law enforcement officers where the data reveals common schemes or perpetrators.

cciPnoorfomnoEtsrepucmclomataniieotnsirnutoscmnaoinneandrbfo.iogErduodnetvenfrcoccwortietocneaiedssnrmueicnmesrep-ePnecoautrotneNempnddrtemeottiowtAneertrocAihcztroeeipkon.rc,anTihclvhiao2w.nlenA0lwtearm0apnlw1claug.ticteoleoito,csniulNogfoinnoonaft.srgtrmmh1uiu5eemaua-sr1ltleitat5proih2nn.unag1dabt1oftlsbivoiaohcerrnaclWcohraeoinlvenegIcbsndrtuotoosemsinrtstneehA-ebrepptorprIiflrornrd2ovta8eetiue,rdrd2cnee,0tas-i1atcoig6nonoedmnnaaemuelnrtehaChrloaocrnneictsieuems ienr those countries, and an online complaint form. All information is available in English, French, German, Korean, Polish, and Spanish. Using the existing Consumer Sentinel Network, the incoming complaints are shared through the government Web site with participating consumer protection law enforcers from 23 nations.

www.consumer.gov/military

Military Sentinel, which was established in September 2002, is a project of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Defense to identify and target consumer protection issues that affect members of the United States Armed Forces and their families. Military Sentinel also provides a gateway to consumer education materials covering a wide range of consumer protection issues, such as auto leasing, identity theft, and work-at-home scams. Members of the United States Armed Forces can enter complaints directly into Consumer Sentinel. Through Consumer Sentinel, the secure password-protected government Web site, this information is used by law enforcement agencies, members of the JAG staff, and others in the Department of Defense to help protect armed services members and their families from consumer protection-related problems.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 71 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 165 of 285

Appendix A2: Sentinel Data Contributors1 January 1 – December 31, 2007

National Fraud

U.S. Postal Information Center

Inspection Service

(Fraud)

(Fraud)

2%

Canada's

3%

PhoneBusters

Other Organizations2 (IDT & Fraud)
2%

(Fraud) 3%

FTC "877 ID THEFT"

Better Business Bureaus

(IDT) 23%

(Fraud) 21%

cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

FTC Web Complaints
(Fraud) 10%

Internet Crime Complaint Center
(Fraud) 23%

FTC "877 FTC HELP"
(Fraud) 6%

FTC Web Complaints
(IDT) 7%

1Percentages are based on the total number of Sentinel complaints (813,899) received between January 1 and December 31, 2007. The type of complaints provided by the organization is indicated in parentheses.
2For a list of other organizations contributing to Sentinel, see Appendix A3.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 72 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 166 of 285

Appendix A3: Other Sentinel Data Contributors January 1 – December 31, 2007

Federal Agencies

Local Police/Sheriff Departments

Federal Bureau of Investigation

California, Inglewood Police Department

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Colorado, Steamboat Springs Police Department

Connecticut, Danbury Police Department

Attorneys General Offices

Illinois, Broadview Police Department

Arkansas

Illinois, Chadwick Police Department

District of Columbia

Illinois, Glenview Police Department

Nevada

Illinois, Wilmette Police Department

North Dakota

Indiana, Fulton County Sheriff’s Department

Iowa, Clinton Police Department

Other State & Local Agencies

Kansas, Dodge City Police Department

California, San Bernardino County District Attorney

Michigan, Genesee County Sheriff’s Department

California, Stanislaus County District Attorney

New Jersey, Harrison Township Police Department

Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs

New York, Cortland County Sheriff's Department

North Carolina Department of Justice North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions

Others

Identity Theft Assistance Xerox Corporation

Center cited in

Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-NNNO1oeeh5ww2riot1h,YY1SCooatarrrrerkkcoeh,,ltiSDivsnbueeaofdW,freoCoirntanPtlAoPdPplwooircllieilieccl2leeD8CDD,eo2peeu0appn1raatt6rmryttmmeSnheetnnetrtiff's office Pennsylvania, Colonial Regional Police Department Pennsylvania, Palmerton Police Department Pennsylvania, Penn Township Police Department Pennsylvania, Plymouth Township Police Department

Pennsylvania, Solebury Township Police Department

South Dakota, Miner County Sheriff's Office

Texas, Mansfield Police Department

Washington, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office

Federal Trade Commission

Page 73 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 167 of 285

Appendix B: Sentinel Complaint Categories
Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair Offers: The promise of a loan that requires you to pay a fee first; worthless credit card loss protection and insurance programs; the promise that accurate negative information can be removed from your credit file for a fee; etc. Business Opportunities and Work-at-Home Plans: Medical billing scams; misleading franchise and Internet-based business opportunities; wealth building plans that don’t make good on their promises; etc.
Charitable Solicitations: Misleading pitches for donations to benefit local service organizations, solicitations for bogus charity or relief organization; etc. Computer Equipment and Software: Problems with computer software, hardware, and computer equipment purchases; unwanted or unauthorized software installations and downloads; etc.
Debt Management/Credit Counseling: Unfulfilled promises by credit counseling organizations to provide free services, send payments to creditors in a timely manner, or reduce interest rates on credit card debt, eliminate late and over-the-limit fees; etc. Employ Agencies/Job Counsel/Overseas Work: Unfulfilled, misleading and deceptive job placement opportunities; offers and services by employment-service firms for up-front fees; etc. Foreign Money Offers: Letters or e-mails offering the "opportunity" to share in a percentage of millions of dollars that a self-proclaimed government official is trying to transfer illegally out of a foreign country in return for money, bank account numbers, or other identifying information from the victim. Health Care: Fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive claims for vision correction procedures, dietary supplements, weight loss pIcItIIisindnnrrmsetoettuedeeednerrriluntstynnic;ecteewttyeasttteracToSAdny.rthe;uaersefcrcevaftctartiiiovl:ciounueincrWmnsese:t:eshtcn,noTeiNuittnrmdmeisoiaesdpsnblorco-evomildtrnoife)ecefsnleePtoeicosrvnuys;aeceleurftolyrrannmtoepdhotampemieftsrmcirgoIAtenleopolfrtnorereisiztavderasuonads,ted;ennhcsttdeaohSeyiaranloelvrifttrvug.hhovereerAisrmsfcppyt;ree.apawortsPasifeooraibgoonnnsov,daiaoiltNdbeedieoqdosdruue.settinhsp1(ttai"himg5tfIenyS-ae1iprnPane5rtnsg,o"2ldiedi)n1n;shufsf1doceotvisrrfattaomfiirillnrciucagttuatyheilbsoritsevlmyneerervcs(tvdialhociinackfeocneestnes;hayl,esidAosnpvusugpyaenrwrlrasiSetlncai;osrr2IeeeceS8tedi,caP,n;a.lsd2laSa,w0cceHcak1coIru6Voeur,fnittatdye;nesindtlsiuskvmmuietaersbysl,ewewriantoicrtae.rh Investments: Promises of riches that don’t pan out in day trading, oil and gas leases, gold and gems, FCC licenses, etc. Magazines and Buyers Clubs: Pitches for "free," "pre-paid," or "special" magazine subscription deals and offers for club memberships that claim to help you save money when buying a particular product or service (CDs, books, etc.). Multi-Level Marketing/Pyramids/Chain Letters: Network plans that offer commissions on the sale of goods by you and distributors you recruit. Office Supplies and Services: Fraudulent or deceptive offers for toner, copier paper, maintenance supplies, equipment maintenance contracts; classified advertising and yellow page invoice scams; website cramming schemes; etc. Prizes/Sweepstakes and Lotteries: Promotions for "free" prizes for a fee; foreign lotteries and sweepstakes offered through the phone, fax, e-mail or mail; etc. Real Estate (Not Timeshares): Complaints about deceptive and misleading practices involving real estate-agents and companies, real estate appraisers and appraisal services, real estate-consultants, real estate-property management, and real estate land developers. Shop-At-Home/Catalog Sales: Problems, such as undisclosed costs, failure to deliver on time, non-delivery, and refusal to honor a guarantee, with purchases made via the Internet (not including auction sales), telephone, or mail.
Telephone Services: Charges for calls to "toll-free" numbers; unauthorized charges such as charges for calls consumers didn’t make; unauthorized switching of consumers’ phone service provider; misleading pre-paid phone card offers; etc. Travel, Vacations and Timeshare Plans: Deceptive offers for "free" or low-cost vacations; cut-rate student travel packages; misleading timeshare offers; etc. "Other" complaint categories are: non-educational grants; unauthorized debits and charges for unknown products; DVD Video/film; modeling agencies/services; video games; scholarship/educational grants; dating services; property/inheritance tracers; green card application services; water purifiers; living trusts; and viaticals.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 74 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 168 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

237 149.9

Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

298 291.6

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,621 231.3

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

303 184.8

Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

642 575.8

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,710 201.0

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,525 186.7

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

342 227.9

Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

522 459.9

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,850 231.2

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

234 185.0

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

385 159.4

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

942 262.3

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

403 308.6

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

404 227.0

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,230 357.5

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

226 200.2

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area AAAAABatuuuulkbggsateuuunirnssrtsintt-fcaaR-i--OeCRWolpdiuitcae,nyhtlCd,eimkNrARvaoJ,oiMnlMAcldekeL,e,CtrMtTMroooXupEpenotcoMMtlryiliotti,eieatpcatGnodrrnoloASiiSpptnt-aoatoSnatllPCitiisiSttusaattMitnneacictaneSSialsttttlrteaAaioAtctpiriAasrseolettariilaAicciztaaarollennaAASarrteeavaat.isAticrpalaAior,eaNo.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,7920007016 269 463
11,206 748 334 891 315
4,164 1,412

325.3 226.1 261.9 249.6 218.1 275.4 265.5 170.3 260.2 275.1 181.0

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,338 238.4

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

303 205.9

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

384 170.8

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,140 148.7

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

301 218.1

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

297 274.0

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

516 135.9

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

628 337.7

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

424 284.3

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

310 209.3

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

617 249.2

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,223 202.1

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area

117 115.7

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

470 310.2

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

529 296.0

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

354 219.6

Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

193 182.3

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,285 226.4

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,585 192.7

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,197 424.0

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

284 250.6 653 271.4

Rank
360 75 188 297 1 261 292 197 5 189 296 342 116 61 200 35 264 50 204 118 141 217 95 111 328 121 96 305 167 249 326 364 216 97 372 45 88 240 142 257 378 59 72 215 302 202 278 12 137 101

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 75 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 169 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,696 188.4

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

224

57.8

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

213 211.7

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,709 150.2

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

355 248.8

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area

333 161.6

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

740 180.6

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,353 236.8

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

489 196.1

Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

485 346.5

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

393 181.5

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

459 150.2

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,078 178.7

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,214 266.2

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

493 259.1

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,108 223.1

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

17,674 185.9

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area CCCCCCooooooellllllouuuuemmmrrgaedbbbd'iuioSAaast,,Sl,aeMSpGtniCroeOAinn,M-g-IMABDse,LretyrCMtorMaOopnepeot,rMotlTorilotcpiXeatpiotantroelnMoilStdpiSatetoaanttialrntniioSttsiSapPtstaintotcaiutlciaStiseiatltstalnaiAtncitAtciaresSaelrtetlaiAAacaAtarrieirlszeatAioacrnaelaaAvr.eaArpaio, No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

283,,5723706016 680 314
3,868 430 381
2,166 383
1,202 585

248.3 179.2 282.7 286.8 183.0 327.0 198.3 361.5 245.5 170.8 202.5

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,783 277.2

Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

642 433.5

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

623 149.8

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

12,467 207.6

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

395 293.9

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

279 260.5

Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area

487 287.9

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

622 164.9

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,946 232.0

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

269 179.9

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

170 155.5

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,146 230.8

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,889 286.0

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

994 186.1

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,810 152.4

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

378 273.4

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area

310 210.0

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

470 171.4

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

472 444.1

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,780 383.3

East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area

257 232.5

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

602 363.3

Rank
288 382 233 357 144 337 306 171 271 40 304 358 311 107 122 208 294 145 310 89 82 301 48 270 31 150 327 256 94
9 361 245 73 120 81 334 186 308 345 190 84 293 353 99 237 324 7 21 184 27

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 76 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 170 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

335

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

215

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

988

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

349

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

542

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

564

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

949

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area

250

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

714

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

280

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

190

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

896

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

849

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

448

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

919

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

311

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

238

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area GGGGGlaaeoeiitlnnntdyseessssbFbvvouaiirlllrolllgees,,,,,NPNGFCALYAMMMMMeieecettrtrtrorroooopppppooooolllcililititiitattataeaannnnndSSSSStittantataaatttititiPsisissstttuittiiciicceccaaaaanlllllAtAAeAArrrerreeAeeaaaaarizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,9427606316 622
1,198 1,642
202 793 740 415 261 235

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

383

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,685

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,359

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

615

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,464

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

397

Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,245

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

550

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

770

Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

340

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

519

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,300

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

259

216.1 134.1 134.2 314.8 273.6 201.6 280.9 194.8 203.8 149.7 150.2 262.5 201.7 358.5 207.9 156.4 166.8 353.3 160.3 345.0 293.6 184.1 195.4 325.0 427.1 410.5 201.6 206.4 285.4 217.7 573.8 205.7 213.6 239.5 206.8 241.3 298.9 300.5 355.1 247.4 228.3

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,431 249 838 358 473 680 345
1,827 235

204.5 184.8 232.9 209.1 288.7 263.9 249.7 200.8 115.8

Rank
222 374 373 57 98 260 90 277 254 362 359 115 258 34 244 344 330 38 339 41 74 300 273 51 10 15 259 247 85 220
2 250 229 163 246 158 69 67 36 148 196 251 298 183 241 78 113 140 263 377

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 77 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 171 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,805

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

499

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

845

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

275

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,661

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

397

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

223

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

411

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

569

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

231

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,682

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

439

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

241

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

472

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

437

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

597

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

317

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area KKKKKKeiinianlnnnolggensxsseaevtpnswoio-lCnlTirec,tie-,ktNBmyT-,RYrpNiMilscMetMOho-Flel-ea-toKBtnrrrodStorpi-pHsPoMotoloalieoslitc,tatcdarinToto,ne,NpTSSdWotX-talVaiiAtnttiMAaissMntPetiMictSuceraaotetelarltponAtrAiooptsrleporteiietolacaAialatniarltaniSAzntSoraSetntaiatsaatittsiivctsia.tcilacAAlarlApreAaraeriaoea,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,3125601416 245 890 258
3,951 534
1,013 771 472
1,726

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

241

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

273

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

473

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

519

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

367

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

676

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,350

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,166

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

848

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

148

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

475

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,555

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

268

140.9 174.8 224.3 235.1 219.7 284.5 222.1 250.8 107.5 206.4 209.9 291.4 178.0 296.6 301.5 312.3 215.7 144.7 208.2 173.4 278.4 236.5 200.8 236.2 288.3 254.9 258.3 258.6 238.9 211.2 254.7 204.0 190.8 350.2 240.4 235.8 186.8 63.9 245.0 200.0 239.0

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

248 458 449 301 966 226 611 1,228 253

227.1 265.6 353.9 279.9 221.2 213.6 215.2 188.1 227.6

Rank
369 319 207 178 214 87 210 136 379 248 238 76 313 71 64 58 224 366 243 322 93 173 262 174 79 131 125 124 166 234 132 253 283 39 160 176 291 381 151 265 164 199 109 37 92 211 228 226 289 198

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 78 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 172 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

509 250.3

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

20,775 160.4

Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,334 191.0

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

469 179.4

Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

196 151.9

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

636 265.5

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

724 315.7

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

527 360.1

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,359 250.3

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,311 325.5

Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area

247 233.2

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

335 263.8

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

452

64.5

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

591 299.9

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,827 143.3

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

432 175.9

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

159 152.2

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical

Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area MMMMMooooondnnbretriglooseotee,om,,A,MLeCLArIAyMM,MMAeeetLtetrrrotooMrpoppopoeoltolliriitltotaiaatpnnacnonSiStlSietStttaaaadtttantiiistissitnSttsiiicttccaPiaacatluilalsAlAeAtiArncrreeaertaaeelaaAArreiazona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

A15re-a15211

archived

on

April

288,,9423401816 207
3,288 7,156
321 634 1,087 264 652 637

163.5 405.5 166.4 217.8 225.4 316.5 156.9 212.2 153.3 420.6 176.1

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

343 297.9

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

319 240.1

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

472 408.0

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

266 231.5

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

374 213.4

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

642 269.2

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

703 526.5

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

659 209.4

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,601 247.5

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

458 388.6

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,823 215.7

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,905 185.9

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

29,207 155.2

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

606 374.8

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

714 271.2

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

772 244.2

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

181 142.0

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,271 255.4

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

171 153.7

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,090 178.3

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

895 381.4

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,636 198.9

Rank
138 338 282 309 356 110 55 33 139 49 182 114 380 68 367 317 355 336 17 332 218 206 54 343 232 351 13 316 70 162 16 187 230 105 3 239 147 19 225 295 347 24 102 154 368 130 350 312 22 268

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 79 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 173 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,418 222.6

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

510 317.6

Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area

336 217.7

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

353 314.9

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,950 243.8

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,004 187.9

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

422 258.1

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

258 159.5

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

444 291.3

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,031 234.3

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

575 155.3

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,214 175.3

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

9,930 245.8

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

181 174.6

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,485 189.2

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

283 215.8

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

942 240.2

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area PRRPPPPPurorruaaeooneuclsevvbtigcaniiolhgdooe-GkhetO,,te-n,oWCCrecArepOeadImsZ-raMiNyM,,eM,UF-eeeNNwLteTtrrCetoorBMwMoppMebpoeoeduolteltirfirrlttootiograatpronphandopcno--SMSloilFitSitlttetaaiaaitatdltdantanliidtsnsiRSitlSstnieiSttictcativaatocPataetliawlitrsuslAi,AtntseiAiRtcr,rcineaercINaaetl-aaleMYaAlAAAArMreerraeaMiezatoreotnrpoaoplviot.lainAtarSnptSaattiiaostt,iiscNtaicloaA.l 1rAe5ar-e1a5211

archived

on

April

2815,,1226306616 486
1,312 859
2,683 1,433
305 790 710 2,692

227.0 245.0 329.7 195.4 413.0 166.3 302.2 199.5 511.5 362.1 270.7

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

183 154.1

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

966 240.8

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

415 230.6

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,310 327.0

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,700 226.1

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,153 152.8

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

895 303.3

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

414 230.5

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,527 147.5

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

712 204.4

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

346 236.5

Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

481 457.6

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,747 229.6

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

522 253.0

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,102 781

286.5 190.4

Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

279 236.9

Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

523 383.8

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,786 260.9

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

174 164.5

San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,364 173.2

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,123 242.2

Rank
209 53 219 56 155 290 126 341 77 180 346 318 149 320 287 223 161 201 152 46 274 14 333 63 267 4 29 103 348 159 191 47 203 352 62 192 365 252 172 6 193 134 83 284 170 20 119 335 323 156

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 80 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 174 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

9,760 233.5

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,577 256.1

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

614 238.9

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

835 208.6

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,011 404.9

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

353 247.9

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,101 235.8

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,542 225.8

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

692 216.2

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,000 181.5

Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area

387 214.7

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,697 266.5

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

324 249.0

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

253 220.5

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

313 264.2

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

684 176.8

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

461 360.8

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area SSSSpptp.rrrCiiinnnlgggofffuiiieeedlll,dddM,,, OMMNHOAMMMMeteeertottrrrpooooppploooicltlliaiiittttnaeaannndSStSSainttttaaaitsPttitiisissutcttiiiaeccclanaaAlllteAAArerArraeeearaaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,2322501516 957 629
1,448 314
1,340 970 513 479

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

364

154.0 166.7 300.9 232.0 324.2 152.3 195.3 238.3 361.6 262.1 288.2

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

248 202.8

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,641 309.0

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

270 191.6

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

544 372.1

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

296 255.8

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,414 210.1

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

230 220.2

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,113 171.2

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

657 195.2

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,896 255.6

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

386 229.5

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

234 174.0

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

667 426.9

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,250 191.2

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

618 270.0

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

698 367.1

Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

427 300.6

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

934 254.1

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,448 258.7

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,706 190.0

Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

251 190.2 366 184.1

Rank
181 127 165 242 18 146 175 205 221 303 227 106 143 212 112 314 32 349 331 65 185 52 354 275 168 30 117 80 255 60 280 25 128 236 213 325 276 129 194 321 11 281 104 26 66 133 123 286 285 299

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 81 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 175 of 285

Appendix C1: Fraud Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

457 234.8

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

476 160.1

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

266 210.6

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,395 338.9

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

144 126.2

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

203 131.1

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,295 199.8

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

715 170.3

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

408 180.4

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

363 284.6

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

13,291 251.2

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

242 149.1

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

243 212.7

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

449 344.8

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

340 271.6

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

284 265.9

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

207 140.5

Whitewater, WI Micropolitan Statistical Area Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area WWWWiioonnorsccsthetoeesntrse-,tSerO,ra,HMleVmAMA,M-iNcWreCoVtprMooMpleioettarcltiornitotapeSpnodtolaSilttiitaintasanttniPisSctSuatiaclteataAintlsirttsAieetciarcaeAalalrAiAzroereanaa

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,3228800916 830 269 518 788 402
1,085 319
1,917

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

448

376.2 198.6 140.2 228.6 443.2 241.6 338.0 237.6 279.9 244.2 192.2

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

979 235.2

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,151 196.1

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

586 362.2

Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

331 176.5

Rank
179 340 235 43 376 375 266 329 307 86 135 363 231 42 100 108 370 23 269 371 195
8 157 44 169 91 153 279 177 272 28 315

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 82 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 176 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

120

75.9

Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

96

93.9

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

733 104.6

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

216 131.7

Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

183 164.1

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

640

75.2

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,049 128.4

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

134

89.3

Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

123 108.4

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

844 105.5

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

102

80.6

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

291 120.5

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

190

52.9

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

126

96.5

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

207 116.3

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

487 141.6

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

115 101.9

Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

132

Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area AAAAABauuuutlkbgsgateuuunirnssrtsintt-cfaaR-i--OeCRWolpdiuitcae,nyhtlCd,eimkNrARvaoJ,oiMnlAMcldekeL,e,CtrMtTMroooXupEepnoctoMMtlriyiltotie,eiaptcadtGnorrnoloASiinSpptt-aoaotSnaPtllCitiiusSittsaatetMitnnacinctaeSSiatlstettlrtaaAioAtctApiriassreorlettaiiilazAccitoaaarllnenaAAaSrrtveeaaa.tiAstricpaalioA,reNao.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,326073016 191
6,223 310 148 445 65
1,641 1,436

60.7 76.1 65.2 103.0 121.1 114.1 117.7 85.0 53.7 108.4 184.1

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,631

99.0

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

56.4

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

154

68.5

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

632

82.5

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

91

65.9

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

103

95.0

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

303

79.8

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

172

92.5

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

102

68.4

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

76

51.3

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

160

64.6

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,054

95.8

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area

34

33.6

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

81

53.5

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

142

79.5

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

117

72.6

Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

59

55.7

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

378

66.6

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,302

74.1

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

327 115.8

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

99

87.4

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

181

75.2

Rank
271 166 120 61 19 276 66 198 107 116 242 80 352 152 87 44 130 332 268 318 128 79 95 86 221 349 106 14 146 342 301 236 313 160 247 174 302 355 322 156 380 350 251 288 344 309 281 89 214 275

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 83 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 177 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

829

92.1

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

876 225.9

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

77

76.5

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

732

64.4

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

144 100.9

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area

89

43.2

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

254

62.0

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

573 100.3

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

101

40.5

Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

147 105.0

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

98

45.2

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

150

49.1

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

441

73.1

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,664 105.1

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

174

91.4

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

465

93.6

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

9,082

95.5

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

216

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area CCCCCooooollllluuuloemmmrgaebbbdiiuoSaast,,S,aMSpGtiCroAOinnM-g-MABse,LertryCtorMaOopnpeo,MtolTrilcotieXaitpttanreonMoldSpiStteoaaittnanltriiottsiPSaptsinttoucailcaeStiialtntsalaAttnitAecirsSaertAelatiacaArtaiizrlseotAiacnraaelaAv.reAarpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

218,,3225080116 149
1,926 102 176 545 112 570 320

100.1 64.5 83.6 136.1 91.1 77.6 91.6 91.0 71.8 81.0 110.8

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,402

81.2

Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

137

92.5

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

558 134.2

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,978 132.9

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

172 128.0

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

105

98.1

Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area

181 107.0

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

177

46.9

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

603

71.9

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

141

94.3

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

75.9

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

465

93.6

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,730 113.3

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

233

43.6

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,632 103.6

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

190 137.4

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area

134

90.8

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

136

49.6

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

223 209.8

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

675 145.4

East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area

120 108.6

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

225 135.8

Rank
176 4
265 324 132 371 329 136 374 119 366 360 283 118 181 168 158 138 323 229 51 185 262 179 188 291 240 103 239 173 56 59 68 149 111 364 290 163 270 167 97 370 125 49 191 359
8 38 105 54

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 84 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 178 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

34

21.9

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

230 143.5

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

908 123.3

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

93

83.9

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

212 107.0

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

185

66.1

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

236

69.8

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area

94

73.2

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

197

56.2

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

44.4

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

100

79.1

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

423 123.9

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

285

67.7

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

261 208.9

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

366

82.8

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

176

88.5

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

93

65.2

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

262

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area GGGGlaeoeitlnntdysesssbFbvouairllrollges,,,,NPNGCAYAMMMMeieectrttrroroooppppoooocllililitititatateaanndnnSSSSitntattaaattPittisiissusttittieciicccaanaalltlleAAAArrArereeearaaaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,1228085016 342
1,358 134 206 307 123 98 146

94.8 65.1 113.7 83.8 152.3 129.6 84.4 177.2 121.7 75.7 128.2

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

129

96.1

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

516

66.7

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

540 228.0

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

116

38.8

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

615

89.7

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

222 133.9

Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

554

92.0

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

225

98.7

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

205

79.6

Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area

169 149.4

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

314 214.8

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

383

72.9

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

95

83.7

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,028

86.5

Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

105

77.9

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

347

96.4

Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area

55

32.1

Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area

203 123.9

Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

179

69.5

Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area

130

94.1

Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area

499

54.8

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

120

59.1

Rank
382 40 74 224 110 311 296 282 343 368 256 72 303 9 232 206 319 161 320 96 226 30 64 222 16 78 272 67 154 308 3 377 196 58 177 148 249 35 7 285 227 216 259 153 381 73 300 165 346 338

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 85 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 179 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,443 116.3

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

161

56.4

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

240

63.7

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

85

72.7

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,541

92.5

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

105

75.2

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

48

47.8

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

108

65.9

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

494

93.3

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

97

86.7

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,330 104.1

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

150

99.6

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

75

55.4

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

141

88.6

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

151 104.2

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

174

91.0

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

140

95.3

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

82

Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area KKKKKKiaeininlnnnolggensxsseaevptnswoio-lCnlTirec,tie,-ktNBmyT-,RYrpNiMilscMetMhOo-Flel-ea-toKBtnrrrodStorpi-pHsPMotooloaliecsoiltt,tacidartnoToe,n,NpTSdSWotX-tailVaniAtttiMAaisPsMntetiMuictSceraeateotlarnltpoAtrtAioopesrlproteiieoAtlacaailatrnialitzanSAnotSranSettaaiatsatittvsiict.siatcAilcarAalplAraeAriaeorea,aNo.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,125422016 284 118
1,539 211 404 220 191 444

72.4 84.2 36.8 88.8 108.2 78.2 93.3 115.0 72.7 104.5 66.5

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

83

82.3

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

52

40.2

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

187 100.7

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

255 100.2

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

145

75.4

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

360 186.5

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

784 139.6

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

460

93.0

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

261

57.5

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

454 196.1

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

305 157.3

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,398 134.9

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

70

62.4

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

96

87.9

Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area

120

69.6

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

167 131.6

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

77

71.6

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

288

66.0

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

66

62.4

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area

116

40.8

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

615

94.2

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

56

50.4

Rank
88 341 325 287 175 274 363 314 171 215 124 141 345 204 123 187 159 289 223 379 201 108 258 170 91 286 121 310 237 375 133 137 273 13 47 172 340 12 25 55 327 210 298 62 292 312 328 373 164 356

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 86 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 180 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

210 103.3

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

18,761 144.9

Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

805

65.9

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

237

90.7

Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

149 115.5

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

183

76.4

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

362 157.9

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

410 280.2

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

271

49.9

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

320

79.4

Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area

71

67.0

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

98

77.2

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,563 223.1

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

157

79.7

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,457 114.3

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

397 161.6

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

99

94.8

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,317

Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area MMMMMMMiiooooosnnnbdnsnrtrieoegloosueaoeet,lopm,,aA,o,LMeClLMAirIsAyM-TM,MSMAetMee.tLtertPrerotooaMrtpropupoopoelopl-tolliBroiitltotaillaatipnocnatnooainStSnlmSeitStttadSiaaattntatntiiigaistnssttitSttiisoiicstPtccnaitaaica,utlcilalMseaAlAAtlniArNcrAreteaeer-araelaWeaAAaIrrieMzaoentraopvo.liAtarnpaSitoat,isNtioca. l1A5r-e1a5211

archived

on

April

28,1123101016 1,050 2,243 89 321 749 155 258 547

152.2 118.6 88.4 69.5 70.6 87.8 79.4 146.2 90.0 166.4 151.2

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

95

82.5

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

120

90.3

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

162 140.0

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

71

61.8

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

104

59.4

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

195

81.8

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

404 302.6

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

331 105.2

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,061

72.9

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

142 120.5

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

895 105.9

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

934

91.2

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

21,090 112.1

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

205 126.8

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

218

82.8

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

355 112.3

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

119

93.4

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

401

80.6

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

49

44.0

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,039

88.6

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

243 103.5

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

497

60.4

Rank
127 39 315 192 90 267 24 2 358 252 305 264 5 248 94 22 162 31 84 207 299 293 211 253 36 195 18 32 235 194 46 331 336 238 1 117 284 81 114 183 100 70 234 99 169 243 369 203 126 333

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 87 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 181 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,586 105 108 94

130.3 65.4 70.0 83.9

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,231

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

475

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

144

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

74

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

211

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

389

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

202

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,778

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,165

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

92

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,428

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

59

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

526

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

281

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area PPPPPRRrrruuaaooeenlcsevvbitcinaoilgdooe-GhetO,,t-n,oWCCrcAreOeadImZ-raMNyM,,M,UFeeeNwLteTtrrCtoorBMMoppMepoeoedoltletirfirlttootoiraatrpopnandcopno-iSSlotlFieSitltttaaiaatdatltatnanliitsnisiRSntStsiiSttictcaivPaatcateatliaulirtsslAi,eAttsiAiRntrcrcieearctIaaee-alalMalAAAAArrreeriazeaMaoentarovpo. lAitrapnaSiota,tiNstoic.a1l 5A-r1e5a211

archived

on

April

281,,172670916 612 366
1,080 381 162 239 196 910

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

77

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

398

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

165

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

444

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

961

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,084

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

221

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

88

153.9 88.9 88.1 45.8 138.4 88.4 54.6 99.2 152.6 88.8 60.2 45.0 134.1 54.7 82.8 114.7 91.1 175.9 67.0 80.3 105.9 154.8 100.0 91.5 64.8 99.2 91.7 110.8 80.5 151.1 74.9 49.0

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

640 344 199 113 2,625 184 377 503 119 218 893
79 2,331 3,509

61.8 98.8 136.0 107.5 127.0 89.2 98.0 122.6 101.1 160.0 83.6 74.7 120.0 119.3

Rank
63 317 294 225 27 200 209 365 48 208 348 143 29 202 334 367 57 347 233 93 184 17 306 245 113 26 139 180 321 142 178 102 244 33 278 361 330 147 52 109 69 199 150 76 131 23 228 279 82 83

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 88 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 182 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,514 131.9

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,241 125.4

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

313 121.8

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

441 110.2

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

383 153.4

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

175 122.9

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

525 112.4

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

569

83.3

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

290

90.6

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

429

77.9

Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area

158

87.6

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,976

91.2

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

186 143.0

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

68

59.3

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

119 100.4

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

296

76.5

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

209 163.6

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

70

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area SSSStppt..rrGCiinnleggooffuiireedgll,eddM,,,UMONTHOMMMMeeteterrtotrorpoopoppolocoliitlilttaiiaetntanadnnSSiStSntaatttatiaPitstsitiustisitcetciaicanclalatAlelAArArAereraeraeaiazona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,426803216 240 340 119 587 329 183 77 100

48.8 38.5 145.6 88.5 76.1 57.7 85.5 80.8 129.0 42.1 79.2

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

95

77.7

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,100

75.1

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

94

66.7

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

209 142.9

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

61

52.7

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,096 162.8

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

142 136.0

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

428

65.8

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

322

95.7

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,713 100.6

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

145

86.2

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

129

95.9

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

322 206.1

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

514

78.6

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

205

89.6

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

261 137.3

Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

90

63.4

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

334

90.9

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,422 150.3

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

719

80.1

Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

105

79.6

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

148

74.5

Rank
60 71 77 104 28 75 98 230 193 260 213 182 41 337 135 266 20 362 378 37 205 269 339 219 241 65 372 255 261 277 307 42 353 21 53 316 157 134 217 155 10 257 197 50 326 189 34 246 250 280

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 89 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 183 of 285

Appendix C2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2007

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

193

99.2

Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

158

53.1

Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

115

91.0

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

898 218.1

Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

131 114.8

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

104

67.2

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,310

79.4

Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

595 141.7

Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

158

69.9

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

151 118.4

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,594 105.7

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

63

38.8

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

68

59.5

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

68

52.2

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

107

85.5

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

109 102.1

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

74

50.2

Whitewater, WI Micropolitan Statistical Area

100

Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Winchester, VA-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area WWWYaooiknroiscmstetoesantr,e-,WSrO,aAMHlemAMM,eMiNctrreCootpprMoooplleiiotttcaalriionnttapeSSnodttlaaSiitttntiaiassntttPiiisSccutaatiealcltnaAAilstrrteAeiecaarAaelraiAzorenaa

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,1424905116 101 165 227 127 476 111 713 261

99.0 99.6 82.9 85.8 141.2 69.6 106.8 104.2 97.4 90.8 112.0

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

365

87.7

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

454

77.4

Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

318 196.5 336 179.1

Rank
144 351 186
6 92 304 254 43 295 85 115 376 335 354 220 129 357 145 140 231 218 45 297 112 122 151 190 101 212 263 11 15

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 90 of 90

Released February 13, 2008

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 184 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 185 of 285
Federal TradFeebCroumarmyis2s0io0n9 cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 186 of 285

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report Subject

Page No.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Type Percentages by Calendar Year . . . . . . . . 4 Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Count by Calendar Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints
Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Method of Consumer Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Consumer Sentinel Network Identity Theft Complaints

How Identity Theft Victims’ Information Is Misused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LICSLLdtaaaoaewrrtnnggeteesEiCsstuynttomfMMTmoerheepcrettlerrfaSoomtieppnCenootnollRtctmiiiitttanCaaeptnnedoelalsniAAnitN.narrP.teeceus.aatetbss.wbny.tRRyeo.VaaIAr.dnnkri.ieckkz.ntMoiiinn.ntmigg.aetsy.tvff’r..ooTAo.Arrh.rpFgIped.oearfe.aitlo.nu.iV,t.td.Nai.i.tco&ny..t..i.T1AmO.5.hr.-st.1ehe.5f.ea..t2r...s1C.C.1.oa...oamn...rmc.d..ph.p..livaS.l..eait..ndi.an..t.ostt...nes....A.R....p.....ar.i....ln...2..k8.....i,.....n2.....0g.....1....6. .....

. .
. . .

. .
. . .

. .
. . .

. .
. . .

. .
. . .

12 13
14 15 16

Consumer Sentinel Network Detailed State Complaint Figures
One page per State and the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Each detailed State report contains the following information: - Top Fraud & Other Complaint Categories - Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims

Appendices Appendix A1: Description of the Consumer Sentinel Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendix A2: Major Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Appendix A3: Other Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix A4: Better Business Bureau Data Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix B1: Complaint Category Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Appendix B2: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Categories (2006 – 2008). . . . . . 75 Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Appendix C: Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid Reported by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix D2: Identity Theft Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Federal Trade Commission

Page 1 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 187 of 285

INTRODUCTION

The Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN) is a secure online database of millions of consumer complaints available only to law enforcement. In addition to storing complaints to the FTC, the CSN also includes complaints filed with the Internet Crime Complaint Center, Better Business Bureaus, Canada’s Phone Busters, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Identity Theft Assistance Center, and the National Fraud Information Center, among others.

Consumer Sentinel Network Leading Partners & Data Contributors

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Better Business Bureaus

Law enforcement partners --- whether they’re down the street, across the nation, or around the world --- can use information in the database to enhance and coordinate investigations. Upgraded features make searching complaints more efficient.

Department of Defense

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Begun in 1997 to collect fraud and identity theft complaints,

the CSN now has more than 7.2 million complaints, including

those about credit reports, debt collection, mortgages, and

lending, among other subjects. This is the first CSN annual rBtihneeaptotnowr31et0.et2hncamaJttaeialnglniuoaoarlniryeyzcseoa. snnSdstohucmDemiteeebedcrorioenrcmagPodaubmeneenniprzteela2daAt0iindro0iztan8ostn,s,aawbCtrvaSha.snAiNecrs.phfraeewiorc,eetNhihvoe.aei1rvd5e-m1s5oo2rr1et1eadrchived

on

ApFrCieldo2em8rma,li2sTs0riao1dn6e
National Association

complaints to CSN after the end of the calendar year, and as a

of Attorneys General

result, the total number of complaints for 2008 will increase in

a few months. For the same reason, totals from previous years

may differ from prior CSN annual reports.

Internet Crime Complaint Center
National Consumers League

The 2008 Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book is based on unverified complaints reported by consumers. The data is not based on a consumer survey.

Canada’s Phonebusters

Social Security Administration

For more information about the Consumer Sentinel Network, visit www.FTC.gov/sentinel. Law enforcement personnel may join CSN at Register.ConsumerSentinel.gov

U.S. Postal Inspection Service

U.S. Secret Service

For Consumer Sentinel Network detailed description and data contributors, see Appendices A1 through A4.

www.FTC.gov/sentinel Federal Trade Commission

www.econsumer.gov

www.FTC.gov/idtheft

Page 2 of 98

www.FTC.gov/sentinel/military Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 188 of 285

Executive Summary Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Data
January – December 2008

•

The Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN) now contains over 7.2 million complaints, and over 5.8

million do-not-call complaints.

•

The CSN received over 1.2 million complaints during calendar year 2008: 52% fraud complaints;

26% identity theft complaints; and 22% other types of complaints. This year’s report is the first to include

the other types of complaints.

•

Identity theft was the number one complaint category in the CSN for calendar year 2008 with

26% of the overall complaints, followed by Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection (9%); Shop-at-Home

and Catalog Sales (4%); Internet Services (4%); Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams (3%);

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users (3%); Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries (3%);

Television and Electronic Media (2%); Banks and Lenders (2%); and Telecom Equipment and Mobile

Services (2%). The complete ranking of all thirty complaint categories is listed on page six of this report.

F•br•ceoirlpmaloiuoprdntlianiingnttfsAFhr,aio5futsto2dyet%-afaelrliassgoauohfiddtcr6eicpt4eepoe3mdomr,cr1iantpe9ielnlP5d,atuwiCaeonnnhftSstiNaae;lelmtAlh2arofe0inrzua0oomnu8ntthdeacpdevcoari.oami1Adnm1pr.pap%laamliaionsoi,natuNsitndsoat.rrape1enp5af-iIor1dnar5ttuwe2edr1dan-1srteeha$tlrea4cwth4meei0vdbee..tsdhiCEtooeoidn.gnhAosOtpufynrmii-llnfy2eoit8ru7is,ar%2lrp0ece1opor6ofncrttethaenocdtts.oepOfactyfohintenhsgocuosomenveserursm$1er.8s reported the phone as the initial point of contact.

•

Colorado is the state with the highest per capita rate of reported fraud and other types of

complaints, followed by Maryland and Nevada.

Identity Theft

•

Credit card fraud (20%) was the most common form of reported identity theft followed by

government documents/benefits fraud (15%), employment fraud (15%), and phone or utilities fraud (13%).

Other significant categories of identity theft reported by victims were bank fraud (11%) and loan fraud

(4%).

•

Government documents/benefits fraud is now the second most common reported type of identity

theft after credit card fraud. Fraudulent tax return-related identity theft, a subtype of government

documents/benefits fraud, has increased nearly six percentage points since calendar year 2006.

•

Electronic fund transfer-related identity theft continues to be the most frequently reported type of

identity theft bank fraud during calendar year 2008, despite declining since calendar year 2006.

•

Arizona is the state with the highest per capita rate of reported identity theft complaints, followed

by California and Florida.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 3 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 189 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Type Percentages1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Complaint Types
- Identity Theft Complaints - Other Complaints - Fraud Complaints

1,223,370

890,066 28%cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

1,050,229 Arpaio,2N5o%. 15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016
26%
22%

20%

24% 48%

55%

52%

CY-2006

CY-2007

CY-2008

1Percentages are based on the total number of Consumer Sentinel Network complaints by calendar year.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 4 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 190 of 285

1,500,000

Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Count1
Calendar Years 2000 through 2008

1,223,370

1,000,000

1,050,229
909,213 890,066 860,383

713,657

500,000 0

551,622

325,519 230,628
cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

CY-2000 CY-2001 CY-2002 CY-2003 CY-2004 CY-2005 CY-2006 CY-2007 CY-2008

1These complaint figures exclude national do not call registry complaints.

Calendar Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Federal Trade Commission

Consumer Sentinel Network

Complaint Type Count

Calendar Years 2000 through 2008

Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Count

Fraud

Identity Theft

Other

111,255

31,140

88,233

137,306

86,250

101,963

242,783

161,977

146,862

331,366

215,240

167,051

410,298

246,909

203,176

437,502

255,667

216,044

428,394

246,174

215,498

577,801

259,266

213,162

643,195

313,982

266,193

Page 5 of 98

Total Complaints 230,628 325,519 551,622 713,657 860,383 909,213 890,066
1,050,229 1,223,370
Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 191 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Categories1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Rank Category

No. of Complaints

1 Identity Theft 2 Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection 3 Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales 4 Internet Services 5 Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams 6 Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users 7 Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

313,982 104,642 52,615 52,102 38,505
34,940 33,340

8 Television and Electronic Media

25,930

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Banks and Lenders TBIACHneuodetlesamverilacnntpnhoeeucmstCteseA-arEOFruEqeepcquetpiuiooLpirnpmcotimuateennnedisnttiinataennasPd,nduEdeCMnmSrtoeeopdbflAiiottrlwyiezPmaoSrrnoeeeatnrevvtc.iAtcAieogrspnea/nRioce,iepNsaoai.rn1d5-W152o1rk1-aartc-hHivoemd eonPAlapnrisl

28,

202162,890 22,387 21,442 20,286 17,294 17,263 16,275

16 Auto Related Complaints

14,278

17 Travel, Vacations and Timeshare Plans 18 Credit Cards 19 Magazines and Buyers Clubs 20 Telephone Services 21 Office Supplies and Services 22 Investment Related Complaints 23 Home Repair, Improvement and Products 24 Debt Management and Credit Counseling

13,200 13,196 10,188
9,300 9,091 7,980 7,635 6,718

25 Real Estate 26 Grants 27 Charitable Solicitations

6,573 2,634 1,889

28 Multi-Level Marketing, Pyramids and Chain Letters 29 Clothing, Textiles and Jewelry 30 Video Games

1,788 1,662 1,068

Percentages1
26% 9% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints (1,223,370) received by the FTC between January 1 and December 31, 2008. Twenty-five percent (303,198) of the total CSN complaints received by the FTC were coded Other (Note in Comments). For CSN category descriptions, details and three year figures, see Appendices B1 through B3.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 6 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 192 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Total Number of Fraud Complaints & Amount Paid
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

CY
2006 2007 2008

Complaint Count

Reporting

Total

Amount Paid

428,394

366,218

577,801

514,447

643,195

538,869

Percentage Reporting Amount Paid
85% 89% 84%

Amount Paid

Reported
$1,178,995,222 $1,370,701,020 $1,833,632,201

Average1
$3,219 $2,664 $3,403

Median2
$500 $357 $440

1Average is based on the total number of consumers who reported an amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 366,218; CY-2007 = 514,447; and CY-2008 = 538,869. Two hundred fifty-seven consumers reported an amount paid of $1 million or more during CY-2008; 184 and 267 consumers for CY-2006 and CY-2007, respectively.

2Median is the middle number in a set of numbers so that half the numbers have values that are greater than the median and

half have values that
DistributionCoofnFsurmauedr CSeonmtipnlealinNtestbwyorAkmount Paid Note: See Appendix

Ccaritefeoldresfirsna.uPCduacleconumltaeptliAaoinrniztosofantnhadevam.meAodruipannatiepoxa,ciNdluofdi.ge1su5rceo-s1mb5py2l1aSi1tnattaserwacnhitdihvteahmde oDouninsttArpipcatriidol f2reC8p,ool2rut0me1db6aias.$0.

Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Amount Paid $0 $1 - 25 $26 - 50 $51 - 75 $76 - 100 $101 - 250 $251 - 500 $501 - 1,000 $1,001 - 5,000 More than $5,000

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages3

155,417

42%

15,298

4%

15,738

4%

9,065

2%

9,239

3%

28,623

8%

28,427

8%

29,753

8%

58,429

16%

16,229

4%

CY - 2007

Complaints Percentages3

279,319

54%

16,328

3%

20,569

4%

12,042

2%

12,817

2%

40,008

8%

33,277

6%

29,990

6%

53,942

10%

16,155

3%

CY - 2008

Complaints Percentages3

286,460 53%

16,655

3%

20,110

4%

12,345

2%

13,568

3%

38,640

7%

32,942

6%

30,135

6%

64,467 12%

23,547

4%

3Percentages are based on the total number of consumers who reported amount paid for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 366,218; CY-2007 = 514,447; and CY-2008 = 538,869.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 7 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 193 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints by Method of Consumer Payment1 January 1 – December 31, 2008
40%
35%

30%
19%
20%

24%

10%

10% 0%

Bank Acccoiutendt

3%
inCPAaudsehvn/aCtneacAsehrizonCa hve. cAkrpaio,

6%
No. 15-15211 archived

Credit Cards

Money Order

on

April 28,
3%

Telephone Bill

2016
Wire Transfer

Debit

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints by Method of Consumer Payment Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Payment Method Bank Account Debit Cash/Cash Advance Check Credit Cards Money Order Telephone Bill Wire Transfer Total Reporting Payment Method

Complaints 13,147 2,439 8,628 20,467 5,912 1,267 15,457 67,317

CY - 2006 Percentages1
19% 4%
13% 30%
9% 2% 23%

Amount Paid Complaints $37,895,193 11,727

CY - 2007 Percentages1
17%

$13,254,637 2,340

4%

$96,741,498 6,814

10%

$41,921,753 22,654

33%

$43,716,702 4,630

7%

$418,507

982

1%

$151,250,489 18,669

28%

67,816

Amount Paid Complaints $30,692,240 11,645

CY - 2008 Percentages1
19%

$18,460,537 1,899

3%

$82,924,792 5,973

10%

$50,337,486 21,555

35%

$31,155,412 3,415

6%

$296,597 1,734

3%

$139,416,602 14,503

24%

60,724

Amount Paid $31,605,923 $26,361,129 $81,557,839 $45,535,456 $15,151,244 $1,248,747 $139,854,009

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the method of payment: CY-2006 = 67,317; CY-2007 = 67,816; and CY-2008 = 60,724. 9% of the consumers reported this information during CY-2008, 16% and 12% for CY-2006 and CY-2007, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 8 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 194 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints by Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Internet - E-mail

52%

Mail

14%

Internet - Web Site/Others

11%

Phone ciOtedthinePruente

7%

Arizona

v.

Arpaio, No. 15-15211
16%

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints by Company’s Method of Contacting Consumers Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Contact Method

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

CY - 2008

Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1 Complaints Percentages1

Internet - E-mail

138,195

45%

152,131

50%

193,817

52%

Mail

50,317

16%

42,330

14%

51,837

14%

Internet - Web Site/Others 46,687

15%

45,447

15%

40,596

11%

Phone

39,365

13%

33,733

11%

26,067

7%

Other

31,722

10%

33,481

11%

57,695

16%

Total Reporting Contact Method

306,286

307,122

370,012

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN fraud complaints for each calendar year where consumers reported the company’s method of initial contact: CY-2006 = 306,286; CY-2007 = 307,122; and CY-2008 = 370,012. 58% of consumers reported this information during CY-2008, 71% and 53% for CY-2006 and CY-2007, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 9 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 195 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age1
January 1 – December 31, 2008
19 and Under 1%

20 - 29

20%

30 - 39

23%

40 - 49

26%

50 - 59

22%

70

60 - 69 and Over
cited in

Puente

4% Arizo4na%v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints

by Consumer Age1

Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Consumer Age 19 and Under 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over Total Reporting Age

CY - 2006 Complaints Percentages1

2,647

2%

23,338

16%

29,080

21%

33,017

23%

28,842

20%

11,753

8%

12,953

9%

CY - 2007 Complaints Percentages1

2,132

2%

21,164

16%

27,227

21%

30,045

23%

26,489

20%

11,137

9%

12,253

9%

CY - 2008 Complaints Percentages1

2,524

1%

67,146

20%

74,639

23%

85,827

26%

73,590

22%

13,826

4%

13,948

4%

141,630

130,447

331,500

1Percentages are based on the total number of consumers reporting their age for CSN fraud complaints each calendar year: CY-2006 = 141,630; CY-2007 = 130,447; and CY-2008 = 331,500. 52% of consumers reported this information during CY-2008, 33% and 23% for CY-2006 and CY-2007, respectively.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 10 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 196 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Identity Theft Complaints How Victims’ Information is Misused1

Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Credit Card Fraud

Loan Fraud

Theft Subtype New Accounts Existing Account

Percent ages
CY-2006
15 .2% 10 .7%

Percentages
CY -2007
14.1% 9.3%

Percentages
CY-2008
12.3% 8.0%

Theft Subtype Business / Personal /
Student Loan

Percentages Percentages Percentages CY-2006 CY-2007 CY-2008
2.5% 2.3% 1.8%

Unspecified Total

0.2% 25%

0.2% 23%

0.1% 20 %

Auto Loan / Lease Real Estate Loan

1.7% 1.3%

1.4% 1.3%

1.3% 1.2%

Government Documents or Benefits Fraud
Percentages Percentages Percentages

Unspecified Total

0.2% 5%

0.3% 5%

0.2% 4%

Theft Subtype Fraudulent Tax Return Filed

CY-2006
6.3%

CY-2007
8.0%

CY-2008
12.2%

Other Identity Theft

Other Government Documents

Percent ages

Issue d/Fo rged

0.9%

0.7%

1.3%

Theft Subtype

CY-2006

Government Benefits

Uncertain

12 .0%

Applied For/Received

1.3%

1.4%

1.2%

Miscellaneous

4.6%

Driver's License Issued/Forged 1.5%

0.9%

0.9%

Evading the Law

2.1%

Unspecified Total
Employment-Related
Theft Subtype Employment-Related Fraud

<0.1% <0.1%

10%

11%

Fraud

Percentages Percentages

cited

CY-2006
in14P%uente

ACY1ri4z-2%o0n07a

<0.1% 15%
v.PACerYrcpe-n2a0tai0og8,esNo. 15 %

Medical 1IAInn5pts-eau1rrr5ntam2ent1ce/e1nEtaomrrcahHiliovuesdeoRneAntperdil

28,

Securities / Other Investments

Property Rental Fraud

Magazines

Child Support

2021.06% 2.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Phone or Utilities Fraud

B ankrup tc y Total

0.2% 24%

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Percentages
CY -20 07
11.6% 7.7% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 25%

Percentages
CY-2008
10.3% 8.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 24 %

Theft Subtype Utilities - New Accounts Wireless - New Accounts Telephone - New Accounts Unauthorized Charges

CY-2006
5.8% 7.2% 4.4%

CY -20 07
5.2% 6.4% 7.3%

CY-2008
5.5% 4.1% 3.4%

Attempted Identity Theft

Percentages Percentages Percentages

Theft Subtype

CY-2006 CY-2007 CY-2008

Attempted Identity Theft

6%

5%

6%

to Existing Accounts Unspecified

0.7% 0.5%

0.5% 0.5%

0.5% 0.2%

Total

17% 18% 13%

Bank Fraud2
Theft Subtype Electronic Fund Transfer Existing Accounts New Accounts Unspecified Total

Percentages Percentages Percentages

CY-2006 CY-2007 CY-2008

8.0% 5.8%

7.0% 4.0%

4.6% 3.4%

3.1% 0.1%

3.1% 0.1%

3.0% 0.1%

16% 13% 11%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN identity theft complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 246,174; CY-2007 = 259,266; and CY-2008 = 313,982. Note that 12% of identity theft complaints include more than one type of identity theft in CY-2008, 18% in CY-2006 and 16% in CY-2007.
2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 11 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 197 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Identity Theft Complaints Law Enforcement Contact1 January 1 – December 31, 2008

2% of Victims Notified a Police Department and Did Not Indicate if a
Report Was Taken

6% of Victims Notified a
Police Department and a Report
Was NOT Taken

65% of Victims Did Not Notify a Police Department

27% of Victims Notified a
Police Department and a Report Was Taken
cited

in

Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

1Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims indicated whether they had notified a police department (241,157). 82% of the identity theft victims who contacted the FTC reported law enforcement contact information.

Law Enforcement Contact Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

If the victim notified a police department, was a report taken? Yes No Not Reported Total Who Notified a Police Department Total Who Did Not Notify a Police Department Total Reporting Law Enforcement Contact Information

CY-2006

Complaints Percentages2

69,142

30%

18,537

8%

1,063

<1%

88,742

38%

144,917

62%

2 33,65 9

CY-2007

Complaints Percentages2

65,290

27 %

18,658

8%

233

<1%

84,18 1

35%

1 58,37 9

65%

242,560

CY-2008

Complaints Percentages2

6 6,394

27%

1 4,500

6%

3,759

2%

84,653

35%

156,504

65%

241,157

2Percentages are based on the total number of identity theft complaints where victims indicated whether they had notified a police department: CY-2006 = 233,659; CY-2007 = 242,560; and CY-2008 = 241,157. 82% of identity theft victims who contacted the FTC reported law enforcement contact information in CY-2008, 98% in CY-2006 and 99% in CY-2007.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 12 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 198 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Identity Theft Complaints by Victims’ Age1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

19 and Under

7%

20 - 29

24%

30 - 39

23%

40 - 49

19%

50 - 59

14%

70

60 - 69
and Over
cited

in

Puente

Arizon5a%v.

7%
Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Consumer Sentinel Network Identity Theft Complaints

by Victims’ Age

Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Consumer Age 19 and Under 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and Over Total Reporting Age

CY - 2006 Complaints Percentages1

18,787

8%

58,916

25%

54,134

23%

46,402

20%

30,916

13%

14,327

6%

9,734

4%

CY - 2007 Complaints Percentages1

19,810

8%

60,319

24%

57,341

23%

48,519

20%

34,285

14%

16,653

7%

10,951

4%

CY - 2008 Complaints Percentages1

20,597

7%

72,637

24%

66,809

23%

57,745

19%

41,969

14%

22,197

7%

14,783

5%

233,216

247,878

296,737

1Percentages are based on the total number of victims reporting their age in CSN identity theft complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 233,216; CY-2007 = 247,878; and CY-2008 = 296,737. 95% of the consumers who contacted the FTC reported their age in CY-2008, 95% in CY-2006 and 96% in CY-2007.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 13 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 199 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network State Complaint Rates
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Fraud & Other Complaints

Identity Theft Complaints

Complaints

Complaints

Per 100,000

Per 100,000

Rank Consumer State

Population Complaints

Rank Victim State

Population

1 Colorado

359.5

17,755

1 Arizona

149.0

2 Maryland

347.6

19,585

2 California

139.1

3 Nevada

344.3

8,953

3 Florida

133.3

4 Oregon

332.0

12,584

4 Texas

130.3

5 Washington

331.8

21,730

5 Nevada

126.0

6 Alaska

328.3

2,253

6 New York

116.2

7 Virginia

317.9

24,695

7 Georgia

111.0

8 Arizona

317.1

20,610

8 Illinois

106.4

9 Florida

313.6

57,472

9 New Mexico

104.9

10 New Hampshire

302.9

3,985

10 Colorado

100.9

11 Delaware

301.2

2,630

11 Maryland

96.1

12 California

290.1

106,623

12 New Jersey

94.2

13 Missouri

288.5

17,056

13 Alabama

93.1

14 Hawaii

286.4

3,689

14 Washington

89.4

15 New Jersey

286.0

24,830

15 Delaware

86.9

16 Georgia

283.6

27,470

16 Louisiana

86.6

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Utah

Wyoming

Idaho

Ohio

Tennessee

Minnesota

Kansas

North Carolina

Texas

cited

in

268.4 262.3 260.5 256.9 255.7 254.0
Puen22te5530A..48rizona
249.2

7,345 1,397 3,970 29,506
v.11A35,,r82p95a39io,
7,101 23,128 60,633

No.

15-15211

17 Connecticut
a112r908chivMMPeeiandcsnhssaiogycnlahvnuaAsnepitatrsil
21 North Carolina 22 Virginia 23 Mississippi 24 Tennessee 25 Rhode Island

28,

2016

86.6 86.1 83.6 83.2 82.5 81.7 80.5 80.2 78.4

26 Montana

249.1

2,410

26 Oregon

77.5

27 Vermont

247.1

1,535

27 Missouri

75.0

28 Pennsylvania

246.7

30,711

28 Oklahoma

74.0

29 Alabama

244.9

11,417

29 South Carolina

73.5

30 Connecticut

244.3

8,552

30 Arkansas

72.4

31 Nebraska

244.1

4,353

31 Indiana

72.0

32 New Mexico

242.2

4,807

32 Ohio

71.7

33 Massachusetts

238.8

15,515

33 Kansas

71.6

34 Maine

238.4

3,138

34 Alaska

71.4

35 Indiana

237.7

15,159

35 Minnesota

67.6

36 Illinois

237.0

30,578

36 Utah

64.9

37 South Carolina

235.6

10,556

37 Nebraska

59.2

38 Wisconsin

233.5

13,142

38 New Hampshire

57.7

39 New York

230.9

44,996

39 Idaho

56.9

40 Rhode Island

230.0

2,417

40 Kentucky

56.1

41 Michigan

228.0

22,805

41 Wisconsin

56.0

42 Oklahoma

222.4

8,099

42 Hawaii

55.2

43 West Virginia

204.4

3,709

43 West Virginia

47.7

44 Louisiana

203.5

8,978

44 Vermont

47.6

45 Iowa

196.3

5,895

45 Maine

47.3

46 Arkansas

192.3

5,492

46 Wyoming

46.9

47 Kentucky

191.4

8,173

47 Montana

46.5

48 South Dakota

165.8

1,333

48 Iowa

44.9

49 North Dakota

162.3

1,041

49 North Dakota

35.7

50 Mississippi

153.1

4,498

50 South Dakota

33.8

Complaints 9,683
51,140 24,440 31,708
3,275 22,647 10,748 13,726
2,081 4,983 5,412 8,181 4,342 5,855
759 3,819 3,031 10,723 8,363 5,408 7,609 6,349 2,367 4,982
824 2,937 4,433 2,696 3,292 2,068 4,589 8,237 2,005
490 3,528 1,775 1,055
759 867 2,396 3,152 711 866 296 623 250 450 1,347 229 272

Note: Per 100,000 unit of population estimates are based on the 2008 U.S. Census population estimates (Table NST-EST2008-01 - Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008). Numbers for the District of Columbia are: Fraud and Others = 2,685 complaints and 453.7 complaints per 100,000 population; Identity Theft = 979 victims and 165.4 victims per 100,000 population.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 14 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 200 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for

Fraud and Other – Related Consumer Complaints1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Co mplaints Per 100,000

Rank Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

1 Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2 Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,148 1,988

859.8 839.3

3 Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area 4 Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

899 806.4 827 778.1

5 Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 6 Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,139 743

737.5 706.8

7 Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 8 Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 9 Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,018 1,423 1,072

695.6 684.1 662.5

10 Gettysburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area 11 Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area 12 Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 13 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

662 1,003 1,112 1,224

654.8 642.0 641.8 634.1

14 Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area 15 Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

890 1,739

627.3 616.0

16 Monroe, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

937 604.4

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area
WTCOAMLoaolloilyckrnneurmeiccgitnnoehapCtgrneidVhdtas,oa,t,eMienrNWnrrl,ne,IHCoAsPVM,nTMuALM-iAceMA-iercWnnoitrMacroptVocerpoepoooltMopriArlttoloiaeietrpltnsaitiao,ztnrnSaolWointSpStantoaASttaniaaltstitaitMtSisaitvscttinteais.aictttcSlriiaAacsoAtllatarpiArltpAcoierAaslaareitletiraiaAcoaenaa,rleSNAatarotei.ast1ic5a-l1A5r2ea11

archived

on

1,001

April

28822,
701

669

701

1,118

870

1,367

673

1,112

2016660034..32
599.8 589.4 589.4 588.1 587.5 582.5 581.7 578.2

27 New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

673 571.0

28 Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area 29 Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

628 568.4 710 568.2

30 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 31 Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

830 567.9 829 567.0

32 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 33 Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,008 2,566

559.1 552.6

34 Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area 35 Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area 36 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

624 769 2,243

551.5 549.3 544.8

37 Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area 38 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,062 1,339

538.9 536.2

39 Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 40 Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

720 1,827

535.7 531.0

41 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area 42 Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

675 3,164

528.3 528.1

43 Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area 44 Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area 45 Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

892 527.3 534 526.5 747 524.6

46 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area 47 Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,336 964

518.6 518.4

48 Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area 49 Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

654 1,179

515.4 514.1

50 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

831 513.9

1Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other types of complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See fraud and other types of complaints figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix D1. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 15 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 201 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network

Largest Metropolitan Areas Ranking for Identity Theft – Related Consumer Complaints1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Co mplaints Per 100,000

Rank Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

1 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 2 Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,422 469

366.8 351.3

3 Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

511 2,259

349.2 322.4

5 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 6 Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

462 316.1 437 279.7

7 Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 8 Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 9 Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

633 2,119
430

273.5 271.6 265.8

10 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 11 Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,078 584

261.9 246.6

12 Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area 13 Gainesville, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

250 235.2 400 230.9

14 Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area 15 Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

824 227.8 559 227.6

16 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

540 216.3

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
HMSMELMVtlaaioaoiscsCmaccnaimCokletmrientnoraio-uo,ted-FnrcnP,Goo,edoMi,nACsr,rtC,tIALeLMNPAMrAavMMueMueiMteltdrelrMoeeentoirt,rpcorptedrCooepotoalrpAloliopiAtoeltaop-ailMtrnliMonaititalzeSnaiiSnttaotnaSrtamaoSnnttStpiatiaistSastoatBitttitlsiiavciisetcttsaita.aaitcilscinclaAtcAhailAaScrl,rAlaprtAFeealAraaLtareAireisaeoMartaie,ceaaNtlrooAp.roe1lait5a-n1S5ta2t1is1ticaalrcAhreiva ed

on

April

286
22857,
395

2016220059..97
203.7

227 200.6

10,919 199.8

453 197.5

1,318 195.8

303 195.4

313 195.3

813 193.6

27 Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

214 191.9

28 Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 29 Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

359 191.4 792 190.5

30 Punta Gorda, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area 31 Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

293 189.7 260 188.1

32 Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 33 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,676 476

187.9 185.2

34 Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 35 Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area 36 Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

936 182.8 207 177.1 336 176.7

37 Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 38 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

177 7,101

175.9 175.8

39 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 40 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,008 224

174.1 172.2

41 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area 42 Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

332 172.0 672 171.4

43 El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area 44 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 45 Auburn-Opelika, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,261 1,369
215

171.3 171.2 170.9

46 Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 47 Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

194 170.4 354 170.2

48 Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 49 Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,596 246

168.6 168.3

50 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

214 167.5

1Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. This chart illustrates the top 50 Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. See identity theft figures for all Metropolitan Areas with a population of 100,000 or more in Appendix D2. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSAEST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 16 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 202 of 285

Consumer Sentinel Network Detailed State Complaint Information
(one page per State and the District of Columbia)

Fraud & Other Complaints

cited

Top Fraud &
in Puente Arizona v.

AOrptahioe, rNoC. 1o5m-15p2l1a1ianrcthCiveadtoengAoprriile2s8,

2016

Identity Theft Complaints
Identity Theft Types Reported by Victims

Federal Trade Commission

Page 17 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 203 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 204 of 285

ALABAMA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 15,759

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Alabama Consumers = 11,417

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Alabama Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,392

12%

2

Television and Electronic Media

609

5%

3

Internet Services

585

5%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

551

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

432

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

431

4%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

408

4%

8

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

405

4%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bABaadscnevitdkaesndocaneinn-tdFhPeeLueeteonLntdaoteelarnnAssurmiaznobdnearCorvef.dCAitSrpPNarioofrt,eaNcutdoio.an1n/5dR-e1op5tha2ei1rr1coamrcphlivaeindtsofnroAmp32rAi38l 762la8b,a2m0a16consu33m%%ers

(11,417).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Alabama Victims = 4,342

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alabama Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2

Complaints 1,380 684 495
376

5 Employment-Related Fraud

343

6 Loan Fraud

158

Other

876

Attempted Identity Theft

217

Perc entag e1 32% 16% 11%
9%
8% 4% 20% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,342 victims reporting from Alabama. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 18 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 205 of 285

ALASKA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 2,743

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Alaska Consumers = 2,253

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Alaska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

229

10%

2

Internet Services

210

9%

3

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

140

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

132

6%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

106

5%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

66

3%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

65

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

57

3%

9 10
1Percentages

Internet Auction areBatbu-caHsisitoeendmedsoeisnnPOPtlphaupneeosntrottetuanAl inrtiiuzemos,nbEaemrv.opAflorCypSmaNieon,ftrNaAoug.de1an5nc-di1e5os2tah1ne1dr acWrocmohripvkle-adinotsn

Apri44l 9828, 2016

2% 2%

from Alaska consumers

(2,253).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Alaska Victims = 490

Identity Theft Types Reported by Alaska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 105 59
53 50 49 24 141 26

Percentage1 21% 12%
11% 10% 10% 5% 29% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 490 victims reporting from Alaska. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 19 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 206 of 285

ARIZONA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 30,293

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Arizona Consumers = 20,610

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Arizona Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,359

11%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,090

5%

3

Internet Services

1,076

5%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

825

4%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

798

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

726

4%

7

Television and Electronic Media

633

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

601

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Banks and Lenders Health Care

based on the total cited in Puente

Anurimzobnear

vo.f

ACrSpNaiof,raNuod.

15-15211 archived on Ap54ri34l 4228, 2016

3% 2%

and other complaints from Arizona consumers

(20,610).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Arizona Victims = 9,683

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arizona Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 3,218 1,335 1,009 959
925 438 2,176 371

Percentage1 33% 14% 10% 10%
10% 5% 22% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 9,683 victims reporting from Arizona. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 20 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 207 of 285

ARKANSAS Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 7,560

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Arkansas Consumers = 5,492

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Arkansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

608

11%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

311

6%

3

Internet Services

283

5%

4

Television and Electronic Media

242

4%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

237

4%

6

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

214

4%

7

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

208

4%

8

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

167

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Health Care Banks and Lenders

based on the total cited in Puente

Anurimzobnear

vo.f

ACrSpNaiof,raNuod.

15-15211 archived on Ap11ri33l 0228, 2016

2% 2%

and other complaints from Arkansas consumers

(5,492).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Arkansas Victims = 2,068

Identity Theft Types Reported by Arkansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 383 305
286 285 247 99 442 124

Percentage1 19% 15%
14% 14% 12% 5% 21% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,068 victims reporting from Arkansas. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 21 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 208 of 285

CALIFORNIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 157,763

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from California Consumers = 106,623

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by California Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

16,182

15%

2

Internet Services

6,621

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

5,238

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

5,060

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

4,096

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

3,430

3%

7

Banks and Lenders

3,248

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

2,180

2%

9 10 1Percentages

are

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and WorkbaTastee-cHldeitoceoomdnmeitnhPEePlqatuuoneitspanlmteneuAnmtrizabonednr aoMfvoC. bASirlNpeaSfiroear,uvNdicoae.ns1d5o-1th5e2r1c1oamrpchlaivinetds

on A2p,1ri7l 628, 2016

2%

2,106

2%

from California consumers

(106,623).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from California Victims = 51,140

Identity Theft Types Reported by California Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Phone or Utilities Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 10,330 10,197 6,261
5,653 5,404 2,214 12,556 2,737

Percentage1 20% 20% 12%
11% 11% 4% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 51,140 victims reporting from California. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 22 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 209 of 285

COLORADO Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 22,738

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Colorado Consumers = 17,755

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Colorado Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,482

8%

2

Internet Services

1,171

7%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

950

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

826

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

591

3%

6

Television and Electronic Media

551

3%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

483

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

468

3%

9 10 1Percentages

are

bBBaataus-cHensiditkoensmoedasneisnntdPOhPleLpaupnteeonsontdratteelurnnAsuirtmiizeobs,neEraomvf.pCAloSrypNmaifeorn,atNuAdog.ae1nn5dc-io1et5sh2ea1rn1dcoaWmrcophrlivkaei-ndtsofnroAmp43rCi08l 88o2l8o,r2ad0o16consu22m%%ers

(17,755).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Colorado Victims = 4,983

Identity Theft Types Reported by Colorado Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,094 835 599 541
486 213 1,262 256

Percentage1 22% 17% 12% 11%
10% 4% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,983 victims reporting from Colorado. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 23 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 210 of 285

CONNECTICUT Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 11,583

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Connecticut Consumers = 8,552

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Connecticut Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

867

10%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

571

7%

3

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

560

7%

4

Internet Services

492

6%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

472

6%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

356

4%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

239

3%

8

Banks and Lenders

218

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair baAsuectdioteoRdneitnlhaePteutdoetCnaotlemnAupmrliazbionentrsaofv.CASrNpafiroa,uNdoa.n1d5o-1th5e2r1c1oamrcphlaivinetds

on Ap12ri90l 7328, 2016 from Connecticut

2% 2%
consumers

(8,552).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Connecticut Victims = 3,031

Identity Theft Types Reported by Connecticut Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 668 470 370 341
325 109 758 171

Percentage1 22% 16% 12% 11%
11% 4% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,031 victims reporting from Connecticut. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 24 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 211 of 285

DELAWARE Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 3,389

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Delaware Consumers = 2,630

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Delaware Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

437

17%

2

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

154

6%

3

Internet Services

139

5%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

129

5%

5

Banks and Lenders

102

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

94

4%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

84

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

83

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bCAardsceveidtadeintdocCneina-tFrhPdeeuseetoLntotaeal nAnsuriamznobdneaCr orve.fdACitrSpPNariooftr,eaNcutodio.an1n/5Rd-e1op5tah2ie1rr1caormchpilvaeindtsonfroAmpri67Dl 712e8la,w20ar1e6cons33u%%mers

(2,630).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Delaware Victims = 759

Identity Theft Types Reported by Delaware Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 155 133 93
78 73 43 167 57

Percentage1 20% 18% 12%
10% 10% 6% 22% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 759 victims reporting from Delaware. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 25 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 212 of 285

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 3,664

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from District of Columbia Consumers = 2,685

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by District of Columbia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

375

14%

2

Internet Services

182

7%

3

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

166

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

136

5%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

91

3%

6

Banks and Lenders

89

3%

7

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

82

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

65

2%

1Percentages

9 10 11
are based

Auto Related Complaints oCCnorctemhidteepitdtuoCtitenaarrlPdEnusqueumniptbemerAeonriftzoCannSdaNSvf.orAfaturwpdaaraieon,dNooth. e1r5c-1o5m2p1l1aianrtcshfirvoemd

on Apri65l 3828, 2016 58
District of Columbia

2% 2% 2%
consumers

(2,685).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from District of Columbia Victims = 979

Identity Theft Types Reported by District of Columbia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 208
168 159 113 67 57 230
54

Percentage1 21%
17% 16% 12% 7% 6% 23% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 979 victims reporting from District of Columbia. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 26 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 213 of 285

FLORIDA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 81,912

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Florida Consumers = 57,472

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Florida Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

8,403

15%

2

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

3,284

6%

3

Internet Services

3,226

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

2,841

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

2,552

4%

6

Banks and Lenders

1,966

3%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,771

3%

8

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work- 1,485

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

at-Home Plans

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

Internet Auction

based on cited in

tPhueetnottealAnruizmobnearvo.fACrpSaNiof,rNauod.

15-15211 and other

archived

on

A1p,4ri6l 628, 1,194

2016

3% 2%

complaints from Florida consumers

(57,472).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Florida Victims = 24,440

Identity Theft Types Reported by Florida Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Phone or Utilities Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 4,973 4,466
3,135 2,413 2,327 1,010 6,199 1,432

Percentage1 20% 18%
13% 10% 10% 4% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 24,440 victims reporting from Florida. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 27 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 214 of 285

GEORGIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 38,218

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Georgia Consumers = 27,470

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Georgia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

4,430

16%

2

Internet Services

1,455

5%

3

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,439

5%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,239

5%

5

Television and Electronic Media

1,229

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,017

4%

7

Banks and Lenders

911

3%

8

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

861

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bBTataeu-csHlseeiitodcenomedomsenisnPEOtPhlqpeauupnetiosopnrtmtateulenAnniutrtiimzaeonsb,dneEarMmvoo.fpbAlCoirlSypemNaSieoefnr,rvatNuiAcodeg.sae1nn5dc-i1oe5sth2ae1nr1dcaoWrmcohprilvkae-idntos nfrAomp78ri14Gl 242e8o,rg2i0a1c6onsum33%%ers

(27,470).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Georgia Victims = 10,748

Identity Theft Types Reported by Georgia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,488 1,906
1,348 1,170
968 426 2,595 590

Percentage1 23% 18%
13% 11% 9% 4% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 10,748 victims reporting from Georgia. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 28 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 215 of 285

HAWAII Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 4,400

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Hawaii Consumers = 3,689

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Hawaii Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

343

9%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

229

6%

3

Internet Services

225

6%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

210

6%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

171

5%

6

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

124

3%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

118

3%

8

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

113

3%

9 10
1Percentages

areBaBbtua-caHnsisitkeoensdmedasoeisnnndPOPtlLhpauepneenostnodrtteteuarnlAsinrtiiuzemos,nbEaemrvo.pfAloCrypSmaNieon,ftrNaAoug.de1an5nc-di1e5os2tah1ne1dr acWrocmohripvkle-adinotsnfAropmri98l H1828a,w2a0ii1c6onsu22m%%ers

(3,689).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Hawaii Victims = 711

Identity Theft Types Reported by Hawaii Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 188
93 76 62 45 27 199 50

Percentage1 26%
13% 11% 9% 6% 4% 28% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 711 victims reporting from Hawaii. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 29 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 216 of 285

IDAHO Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 4,837

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Idaho Consumers = 3,970

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Idaho Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

348

9%

2

Internet Services

271

7%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

237

6%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

186

5%

5

Television and Electronic Media

126

3%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

125

3%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

124

3%

8

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

94

2%

9 10
1Percentages

Computer Equipment and Software arBaetub-cHsaiitsoenemeddseisonPnOPlptauhpneeosntrtoteutanAlirtniizeuosm,nEbaemvr.poAlforCypmaSiNeon, tfNrAaoug.de1n5ac-ni1de5so2at1hn1edraWcrcoohmrivkpe-ladinotns

Apri89l 8228, 2016

2% 2%

from Idaho consumers

(3,970).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Idaho Victims = 867

Identity Theft Types Reported by Idaho Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 156 118
99 96 84 42 236 60

Percentage1 18% 14%
11% 11% 10% 5% 27% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 867 victims reporting from Idaho. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 30 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 217 of 285

ILLINOIS Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 44,304

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Illinois Consumers = 30,578

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Illinois Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,978

10%

2

Internet Services

1,782

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,727

6%

4

Television and Electronic Media

1,552

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,282

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,218

4%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

1,195

4%

8

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,188

4%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Health Care Computer Equipment and Software

based on cited in

tPhueetnottealAnruizmobnearvo.fACrpSaNiof,rNauod.

15-15211 and other

archived on Ap88ri59l 6528, 2016

3% 3%

complaints from Illinois consumers

(30,578).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Illinois Victims = 13,726

Identity Theft Types Reported by Illinois Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,608 2,382 1,970 1,919
1,350 581
3,080 768

Percentage1 19% 17% 14% 14%
10% 4% 22% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 13,726 victims reporting from Illinois. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 31 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 218 of 285

INDIANA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 19,748

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Indiana Consumers = 15,159

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Indiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,679

11%

2

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,016

7%

3

Internet Services

867

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

851

6%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

783

5%

6

Television and Electronic Media

484

3%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

461

3%

8

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-

408

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

at-Home Plans

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

Banks and Lenders

based on cited in

tPhueetonttaelAnruizmobnear

vo.fACrSpaNiof,raNuod.

15-15211 and other

archived

on

Ap4ri0l 228, 356

2016

3% 2%

complaints from Indiana consumers

(15,159).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Indiana Victims = 4,589

Identity Theft Types Reported by Indiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 894 822 642
487 467 176 1,072 209

Percentage1 19% 18% 14%
11% 10% 4% 23% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,589 victims reporting from Indiana. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 32 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 219 of 285

IOWA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 7,242

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Iowa Consumers = 5,895

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Iowa Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

568

10%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

447

8%

3

Internet Services

322

5%

4

Television and Electronic Media

274

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

260

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

187

3%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

172

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

172

3%

9 10
1Percentages

arBaCetou-bcHsmiaitosenpemedudsteisenorPOnPElpatuqhpneueosnirptttoemutnaAeilnrtiintzeuoasm,nnEdabmeSvr.opoAfltofrwypCamaSrieeoNn, tNfrAoagu. ed1n5ac-ni1ed5s2oa1tnh1dearWrccoohmrivkpe-ldaionntsAfrpo11rmi56l 862I8o,w2a01co6nsum33e%%rs

(5,895).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Iowa Victims = 1,347

Identity Theft Types Reported by Iowa Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 322 169 163 155
116 49
352 88

Percentage1 24% 13% 12% 12%
9% 4% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 1,347 victims reporting from Iowa. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 33 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 220 of 285

KANSAS Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 9,106

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Kansas Consumers = 7,101

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Kansas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1 Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

750

11%

2 Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

399

6%

3 Internet Services

389

5%

4 Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

307

4%

5 Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

266

4%

6 Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

216

3%

7 Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

201

3%

8 Television and Electronic Media

176

2%

9 10 1Percentages

areBBataub-HnscaikisonteesmeddasesnoindPnOlPLtpahupneeensotdnrotetuetranslAitnriieuzsmo, nbEaemrvpo. lfAoCyrpmSaNeion,ft rNAaoug.de1na5cn-ide1s5o2athn1ed1r Wacrocomhrkipv-leadinotsn fArop11mr66il53K28a,n2sa0s1c6onsu22m%%ers

(7,101).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Kansas Victims = 2,005

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kansas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 402 290 266
252 208 80 512 117

Percentage1 20% 14% 13%
13% 10% 4% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,005 victims reporting from Kansas. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 34 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 221 of 285

KENTUCKY Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 10,569

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Kentucky Consumers = 8,173

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Kentucky Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,021

12%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

498

6%

3

Internet Services

449

5%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

438

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

341

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

305

4%

7

Television and Electronic Media

290

4%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

253

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bBTaateu-scHlseeiitdocenomedomsneisntPEOhPlqepauupnteioospntrmtateulennAniutrtiimzaeonsb,dneEarMmovof.pbACloirlSypeNmaSieoefnrr,avtNuiAcodeg.ase1nn5dc-i1oe5tsh2ae1nr1dcaoWrmcohprilvkae-indtsonfroAmp22ri1K1l 012e8n,tu2c0k1y6cons33u%%mers

(8,173).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Kentucky Victims = 2,396

Identity Theft Types Reported by Kentucky Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 503 418 288
255 182 102 611 141

Percentage1 21% 17% 12%
11% 8% 4% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,396 victims reporting from Kentucky. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 35 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 222 of 285

LOUISIANA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 12,797

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Louisiana Consumers = 8,978

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Louisiana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,090

12%

2

Internet Services

477

5%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

477

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

449

5%

5

Television and Electronic Media

426

5%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

347

4%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

345

4%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

277

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bABaadscnveitkdaesndocaneinn-dtFhPeLeueeteonLntdotaeealrnnAssurimaznobdnearCorvef.dACitrSpPNariooftr,eaNcutodio.an1n/5Rd-e1op5tha2ie1rr1caormchpilvaeindtsonfroAmp22riL30l 16o2u8i,s2ia0n1a6cons32u%%mers

(8,978).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Louisiana Victims = 3,819

Identity Theft Types Reported by Louisiana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,040 688 436
398 283 164 819 200

Percentage1 27% 18% 11%
10% 7% 4% 21% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 3,819 victims reporting from Louisiana. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 36 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 223 of 285

MAINE Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 3,761

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Maine Consumers = 3,138

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Maine Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

312

10%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

235

7%

3

Internet Services

223

7%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

156

5%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

133

4%

6

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-

86

3%

at-Home Plans

7

Television and Electronic Media

82

3%

8 9 10 11
1Percentages

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users areICAnbodtcaemvisrtaenepnddeuctteioenA-nrFPuEtechuqeteeiuLonitnpootemtaanAlesnrniatzunoamdnnbdaCeSrvre.oodAffittrwCpPaSarriNoeot,efNcratoiuo.dn1/a5Rn-e1dp5oa2ti1hr1eracrocmhivpeladinotns

Apri86l 1828, 2016

3% 2%

68

2%

68

2%

from Maine consumers

(3,138).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Maine Victims = 623

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maine Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 167 92
64 45 30 26 162 54

Percentage1 27% 15%
10% 7% 5% 4% 26% 9%

1Percentages are based on the 623 victims reporting from Maine. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 37 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 224 of 285

MARYLAND Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 24,997

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Maryland Consumers = 19,585

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Maryland Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,143

11%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,083

6%

3

Internet Services

1,062

5%

4

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

949

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

809

4%

6

Banks and Lenders

647

3%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

638

3%

8

Television and Electronic Media

540

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bTAaseucelteidotceoRodnmeinltahEPteequduteoiCpntamotlemenAnputrlmiazaibonnedntrsaMovfo.CbAiSrlpeNaSifoerr,avuNidcoe.asn1d5-o1t5h2e1r1coamrcphliaviendtsofnroAmp44rMi23l 902ar8y,l2a0nd16consu22m%%ers

(19,585).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Maryland Victims = 5,412

Identity Theft Types Reported by Maryland Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,374
738 605 594 379 249 1,413 356

Percentage1 25%
14% 11% 11% 7% 5% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 5,412 victims reporting from Maryland. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 38 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 225 of 285

MASSACHUSETTS Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 20,923

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Massachusetts Consumers = 15,515

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Massachusetts Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,402

9%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,053

7%

3

Internet Services

1,027

7%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

720

5%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

566

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

537

3%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

499

3%

8

Banks and Lenders

415

3%

9 10
1Percentages are

basTTedeeclloeeitncveoidtsmhiionenEtPoqautunaeidlpnnmEteulemeAncbtrtirezaoronndnoiacfMCMvo.SebANdirlipefaraSaiouer,dvNaicone.ds1o5t-h1e5r2c1o1maprlcahinivtes dfroonmAMp33rai79ls36s2a8c,h2u0s1e6tts

3% 2%
consumers

(15,515).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Massachusetts Victims = 5,408

Identity Theft Types Reported by Massachusetts Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,397 766 600
540 523 189 1,408 344

Percentage1 26% 14% 11%
10% 10% 3% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 5,408 victims reporting from Massachusetts. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 39 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 226 of 285

MICHIGAN Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 31,168

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Michigan Consumers = 22,805

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Michigan Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,530

11%

2

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,420

6%

3

Internet Services

1,280

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,279

6%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,026

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

931

4%

7

Television and Electronic Media

721

3%

8

Banks and Lenders

627

3%

9 10 1Percentages

are

bCBaatsou-ceHmsiditoenpomedunsteisentrPhOPEelpauqtpneousontirapttelmunnAeuinrtmiitzeboas,ennrdEaomSvf.opCAfltoSrwypNamarifeeorn,atuNAdog.ae1nnd5c-oi1et5sh2ea1rn1cdoaWmrcpohlriavkie-ndtsofnroAmp55rMi87l 922ic8h,i2g0an16consu33m%%ers

(22,805).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Michigan Victims = 8,363

Identity Theft Types Reported by Michigan Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,862 1,289 1,222
746 576 446 2,033 522

Percentage1 22% 15% 15%
9% 7% 5% 24% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 8,363 victims reporting from Michigan. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 40 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 227 of 285

MINNESOTA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 16,787

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Minnesota Consumers = 13,259

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Minnesota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,034

8%

2

Internet Services

745

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

720

5%

4

Television and Electronic Media

696

5%

5

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

688

5%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

563

4%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

523

4%

8

Health Care

433

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Computer Equipment and Software bBasaecnditkeosdnainnthdPeLuteoentnadtleenrAsumrizboenraovf .CASrNpafiora, uNdoa. n1d5-o1t5he2r11coamrcphlaiviendts

on Ap33ri67l 6028, 2016

3% 3%

from Minnesota consumers

(13,259).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Minnesota Victims = 3,528

Identity Theft Types Reported by Minnesota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 829
454 406 405 361 140 873 210

Percentage1 23%
13% 12% 11% 10% 4% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,528 victims reporting from Minnesota. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 41 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 228 of 285

MISSISSIPPI Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 6,865

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Mississippi Consumers = 4,498

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Mississippi Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

666

15%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

218

5%

3

Internet Services

221

5%

4

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

203

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

193

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

179

4%

7

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

154

3%

8

Television and Electronic Media

143

3%

9 10 1Percentages

are

bBBaatsau-ceHnsiditkoensomednaseisnnthdPOPelLpautpneoensotnadrttleeunrnAsuirtmiizebose,nrEaomvf.pCAloSrypNmaifeorna, tuNdAoga. ne1nd5c-oi1et5hs2ea1rn1cdoaWmrcpohlriavkie-ndtsofnroAmp11rMi32l 55i2s8s,is2s0ip1p6i

3% 3% consumers

(4,498).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Mississippi Victims = 2,367

Identity Theft Types Reported by Mississippi Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 613 391 317
243 191 102 526 107

Percentage1 26% 17% 13%
10% 8% 4% 22% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,367 victims reporting from Mississippi. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 42 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 229 of 285

MISSOURI Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 21,489

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Missouri Consumers = 17,056

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Missouri Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,789

10%

2

Television and Electronic Media

1,360

8%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

938

5%

4

Internet Services

913

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

714

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

690

4%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

657

4%

8

Health Care

638

4%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bBTaateu-scHlseeiitdocenomedomsneisntPEOhPlqepauupnteioospntrmatteulennAniutrtimizaeonsb,dneEarMmovof.pbCAloirSlypeNmaSieofernr,avtNuiAcdoeg.ase1nn5dc-i1oe5tsh2ae1nr1dcaoWrmcohprilvkae-indtsofnroAmp46rMi60l 772is8s,o2u0r1i 6consu34m%%ers

(17,056).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Missouri Victims = 4,433

Identity Theft Types Reported by Missouri Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 964 663
594 519 339 190 1,095 293

Percentage1 22% 15%
13% 12% 8% 4% 25% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 4,433 victims reporting from Missouri. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 43 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 230 of 285

MONTANA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 2,860

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Montana Consumers = 2,410

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Montana Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

249

10%

2

Internet Services

149

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

147

6%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

125

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

114

5%

6

Television and Electronic Media

73

3%

7

Credit Cards

61

3%

8

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

58

2%

9 10 1Percentages

are

CBabtaru-cesHsieditoenditmedoBseinsnuPOtrPhelpaeuapnuetsoosnr,tttaeIulnnAfniortuiirzmemosba,netEairomvon.pfFAlCourySprnmaNiiseofhn,retaNruAsodg.aea1nnnd5cd-Ri1eo5est2pha1oenrr1dtcaUWormscoehprrisvklae-idntosnfrAopmri55lM882o8n, t2a0n1a6consu22m%%ers

(2,410).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Montana Victims = 450

Identity Theft Types Reported by Montana Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 102 53
48 45 32 23 128 35

Percentage1 23% 12%
11% 10% 7% 5% 28% 8%

1Percentages are based on the 450 victims reporting from Montana. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 44 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 231 of 285

NEBRASKA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 5,408

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Nebraska Consumers = 4,353

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Nebraska Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

459

11%

2

Internet Services

274

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

221

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

194

4%

5

Television and Electronic Media

159

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

157

4%

7

Health Care

143

3%

8

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

141

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Computer Equipment and Banks and Lenders

based on the total cited in Puente

Anurimzobnear

Software vo.f ACrSpNaiof,raNuod.

15-15211 archived on Ap1ri90l 3128, 2016

2% 2%

and other complaints from Nebraska consumers

(4,353).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Nebraska Victims = 1,055

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nebraska Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 199 184 126 116
107 41
284 39

Percentage1 19% 17% 12% 11%
10% 4% 27% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 1,055 victims reporting from Nebraska. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 45 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 232 of 285

NEVADA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 12,228

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Nevada Consumers = 8,953

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Nevada Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,309

15%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

484

5%

3

Internet Services

480

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

412

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

372

4%

6

Banks and Lenders

310

3%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

263

3%

8

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-

213

2%

9 10
1Percentages

at-Home Plans

Television and Electronic Media

Internet Auction

are

based on cited in

PthueetnottealAnruizmonbaervo. fACrpSaNio,frNauod.

15-15211 and other

archived

on

Ap1ri9l 528, 176

2016

2% 2%

complaints from Nevada consumers

(8,953).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Nevada Victims = 3,275

Identity Theft Types Reported by Nevada Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Phone or Utilities Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 611 526 396
394 374 182 866 190

Percentage1 19% 16% 12%
12% 11% 6% 26% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,275 victims reporting from Nevada. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 46 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 233 of 285

NEW HAMPSHIRE Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 4,744

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from New Hampshire Consumers = 3,985

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by New Hampshire Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

478

12%

2

Internet Services

243

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

239

6%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

211

5%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

170

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

153

4%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

108

3%

8

Health Care

107

3%

9 10
1Percentages are

Banks and Lenders Internet Auction
basedcoitnedthientPotuaelnntuemAbriezroonfaCvS. NArpfraaiuod,

No. and

15-15211 archived on Ap1ri08l 3228, 2016 other complaints from New Hampshire

3% 2%
consumers

(3,985).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from New Hampshire Victims = 759

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Hampshire Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud

Complaints 219 91

Percentage1 29% 12%

3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud
Other Attempted Identity Theft

83

11%

75

10%

50

7%

28

4%

189

25%

55

7%

1Percentages are based on the 759 victims reporting from New Hampshire. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 47 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 234 of 285

NEW JERSEY Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 33,011

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from New Jersey Consumers = 24,830

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by New Jersey Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

3,170

13%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,407

6%

3

Internet Services

1,394

6%

4

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,144

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,080

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

861

3%

7

Banks and Lenders

712

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

688

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services baCsercedidteoitdnCtinhaerPdtusoetanltenuAmrizboenr aofvC. ASrNpafiroa,uNdoa.n1d5o-1th5e2r1c1omarpclhaiivnetds

on Ap56ri61l 3828, 2016 from New Jersey

2% 2%
consumers

(24,830).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from New Jersey Victims = 8,181

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Jersey Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,907 1,027 961 874
817 299 2,205 517

Percentage1 23% 13% 12% 11%
10% 4% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 8,181 victims reporting from New Jersey. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 48 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 235 of 285

NEW MEXICO Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 6,888

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from New Mexico Consumers = 4,807

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by New Mexico Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

559

12%

2

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

370

8%

3

Internet Services

286

6%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

217

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

185

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

165

3%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

103

2%

8

Banks and Lenders

102

2%

9 10 1Percentages

are

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and WorkbaaCster-cedHidtooeitmndCetinhaPerPdltausonetsanltenuAmribzoernaofvC. ASrNpafrioa,uNd oa.n1d5o-t1h5e2r1c1omarpclhaiivnetds

on Ap1ri0l 228, 2016 94
from New Mexico

2% 2% consumers

(4,807).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from New Mexico Victims = 2,081

Identity Theft Types Reported by New Mexico Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 476 347 268 209
196 95
516 106

Percentage1 23% 17% 13% 10%
9% 5% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,081 victims reporting from New Mexico. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 49 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 236 of 285

NEW YORK Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 67,643

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from New York Consumers = 44,996

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by New York Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

5,703

13%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

3,180

7%

3

Internet Services

2,608

6%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

2,067

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

2,019

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,549

3%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

1,351

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

1,274

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bIBansatecendirtkenosdenatinntAhdPueLcutteoeinotnadntleenrAsumrizboenraovf .CASrNpafiora, uNdoa. n1d5-o1t5h2er11coamrcphlaiviendts ofnroAm11p,,21Nri12le102w8,Y2o0r1k6consu32m%%ers

(44,996).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from New York Victims = 22,647

Identity Theft Types Reported by New York Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 5,414 3,860 3,683
2,072 1,921
849 4,853 1,438

Percentage1 24% 17% 16%
9% 8% 4% 21% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 22,647 victims reporting from New York. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 50 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 237 of 285

NORTH CAROLINA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 30,737

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from North Carolina Consumers = 23,128

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by North Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,851

12%

2

Internet Services

1,362

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,171

5%

4

Television and Electronic Media

1,038

4%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,016

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

974

4%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

778

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

728

3%

9 10
1Percentages are

baseHTdeecloaeitlncethodthmCienaEtrPoeqtuuaeilpnnmtueemAnbtriezaronodnfaMCvoS. bNAirlpferaaSiuoedr,vNaicnoed.s1o5th-1e5r 2c1o1maprlcahinivtsedfroomn ANpo67rri81lt08h28C,a2r0o1li6na

3% 3%
consumers

(23,128).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from North Carolina Victims = 7,609

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud

Complaints 1,322 1,199 1,086 872

Percentage1 17% 16% 14% 11%

5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud
Other Attempted Identity Theft

765

10%

309

4%

1,926

25%

426

6%

1Percentages are based on the 7,609 victims reporting from North Carolina. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 51 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 238 of 285

NORTH DAKOTA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 1,270

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from North Dakota Consumers = 1,041

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by North Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

97

9%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

73

7%

3

Internet Services

57

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

53

5%

5

Television and Electronic Media

40

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

32

3%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

31

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

28

3%

9 10
1Percentages are

baHIsneetcdeairtloentnhdetCtihnAaeruPetcoutteiaonlntneuAmribzeornoafvC. SANrpafriaou, dNoan. d15o-t1h5e2r 1c1omarpclhaiivnetsdforonmApNrio22lr862th8,D2a0k1o6ta

3% 2%
consumers

(1,041).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from North Dakota Victims = 229

Identity Theft Types Reported by North Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 50
28 27 23 20
5 64 14

Percentage1 22%
12% 12% 10% 9% 2% 28% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 229 victims reporting from North Dakota. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 52 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 239 of 285

OHIO Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 37,743

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Ohio Consumers = 29,506

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Ohio Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

4,189

14%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,667

6%

3

Internet Services

1,484

5%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,346

5%

5

Television and Electronic Media

1,222

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,154

4%

7

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,104

4%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

832

3%

9 10 1Percentages

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and WorkareBatba-cHanitskoeesmddaeionnndPPltLauhneeensntdoteetraAsl rnizuomnbaevr.oAf rCpSaiNo,fNraou.d1a5n-1d5o2t1h1eracrochmivpeladinotns

Ap8ri1l 128, 2016 3%

807

3%

from Ohio consumers

(29,506).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Ohio Victims = 8,237

Identity Theft Types Reported by Ohio Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Phone or Utilities Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,987 1,598 1,090 506
776 326 2,000 447

Percentage1 24% 19% 13% 6%
9% 4% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 8,237 victims reporting from Ohio. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 53 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 240 of 285

OKLAHOMA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 10,795

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Oklahoma Consumers = 8,099

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Oklahoma Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,114

14%

2

Internet Services

432

5%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

416

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

349

4%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

288

4%

6

Television and Electronic Media

286

4%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

277

3%

8

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

274

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Banks and Lenders Computer Equipment and

based on the total cited in Puente

nAurmizobnera

oSvf.oCAftSrwpNaariefor,aNudo.a1n5d-1o5th2e1r1coamrcphlivaeindtsofnroAmp22rOi11l 41k2l8a,h2o0m1a6

3% 3%
consumers

(8,099).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Oklahoma Victims = 2,696

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oklahoma Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 505 424 334
331 327 126 640 143

Percentage1 19% 16% 12%
12% 12% 5% 24% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 2,696 victims reporting from Oklahoma. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 54 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 241 of 285

OREGON Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 15,521

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Oregon Consumers = 12,584

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Oregon Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,687

13%

2

Internet Services

809

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

587

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

500

4%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

443

4%

6

Television and Electronic Media

394

3%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

370

3%

8

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

353

3%

9 10 1Percentages

are

BBabtaau-cHsnsieitkoendsmedoaseisnnndPOtPhlLpauepneetnsoondrtttaeeulrnAsnirtuiizmeosb,neEarmvo.pfAlCorySpmaNieofn,rtaNuAodg. ea1nn5cd-i1eo5st2ha1en1rdcaWormcohprivklae-idntosnfrAopm33ri21lO372r8e,g2o0n1c6onsum33%%ers

(12,584).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Oregon Victims = 2,937

Identity Theft Types Reported by Oregon Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 577
401 333 327 306 84 839 171

Percentage1 20%
14% 11% 11% 10% 3% 29% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 2,937 victims reporting from Oregon. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 55 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 242 of 285

PENNSYLVANIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 41,434

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Pennsylvania Consumers = 30,711

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Pennsylvania Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

3,730

12%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,962

6%

3

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,760

6%

4

Internet Services

1,723

6%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,500

5%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,296

4%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

868

3%

8

Banks and Lenders

819

3%

9 10 1Percentages are

basABaetud-dcHsvioitaoennnmedctsheeisne-POFPtleopauetpneasoLnlrotnteuaunnAmsirtbiiazeenosrd,noEaCfmrvCe.pSdAliNotrypPfmarriaoeoutn,edtNcAatoinog.dne1n/o5Rct-hie1epe5sra2aic1rno1dmaWprcloahirinvkte-sdfroonmAPp77eri21nl 29n2s8y,l2v0an1i6a

2% 2% consumers

(30,711).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Pennsylvania Victims = 10,723

Identity Theft Types Reported by Pennsylvania Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 2,398 1,856 1,412
1,117 911 390
2,488 682

Percentage1 22% 17% 13%
10% 8% 4% 23% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 10,723 victims reporting from Pennsylvania. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 56 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 243 of 285

RHODE ISLAND Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 3,241

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Rhode Island Consumers = 2,417

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Rhode Island Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

319

13%

2

Internet Services

149

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

141

6%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

121

5%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

103

4%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

92

4%

7

Internet Auction

67

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

65

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services baBasteu-cdHsiitooennmedsteishnPOePltpauopnetosanlrttenuunAmirtiibzeeosr,nEaofmvC.pASloNrypmafrieoan,utNdAoag.ne1dn5oc-ti1he5se2ra1cn1odmaWrpclohariivkne-tsd

on Apri55l 2828, from Rhode

2016 Island

2% 2%
consumers

(2,417).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Rhode Island Victims = 824

Identity Theft Types Reported by Rhode Island Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 187 124 110 98
79 33 205 53

Percentage1 23% 15% 13% 12%
10% 4% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 824 victims reporting from Rhode Island. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 57 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 244 of 285

SOUTH CAROLINA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 13,848

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from South Carolina Consumers = 10,556

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by South Carolina Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,583

15%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

541

5%

3

Internet Services

539

5%

4

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

532

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

444

4%

6

Television and Electronic Media

414

4%

7

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

357

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

339

3%

9 10
1Percentages are

Banks and Lenders baseAddcovitnaendtcheien-FtPoetueaelLnnotueamnAsbrieazrnodonfaCCrveS.dNAitrpfPraariouotd,eNcatnoiod. n1o/5Rth-e1ep5ra2ci1or1maprlcahinivtsedfroomn

Ap22ri85l 3228, 2016 South Carolina

3% 2%
consumers

(10,556).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from South Carolina Victims = 3,292

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Carolina Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 620 548 449
346 309 162 814 176

Percentage1 19% 17% 14%
11% 9% 5% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 3,292 victims reporting from South Carolina. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 58 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 245 of 285

SOUTH DAKOTA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 1,605

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from South Dakota Consumers = 1,333

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by South Dakota Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

157

12%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

99

7%

3

Internet Services

68

5%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

57

4%

5

Television and Electronic Media

55

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

47

4%

7

Computer Equipment and Software

45

3%

8

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

39

3%

9 10 11
1Percentages are

baABIasnteud-tcdHesviirtoaoennnnmedecstteeishnA-ePOFuPltepcauoetpnteiaosoLnlrnottneuaunnAmsirtiibazeneosrd,noEaCfmrvCe.pdSAlioNtrypPmafrrioeaotnu,etdNcAtoaiong. ned1n/5Roc-tie1hep5esa2rai1rcn1odmaWrpclohariivkne-tsdforonmApSroi333lu1002th8,D2a0k1o6ta

2% 2% 2%
consumers

(1,333).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from South Dakota Victims = 272

Identity Theft Types Reported by South Dakota Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 66
37 32 32 28
8 73 17

Percentage1 24%
14% 12% 12% 10% 3% 27% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 272 victims reporting from South Dakota. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 59 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 246 of 285

TENNESSEE Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 20,875

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Tennessee Consumers = 15,893

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Tennessee Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,007

13%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

896

6%

3

Television and Electronic Media

853

5%

4

Internet Services

831

5%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

699

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

595

4%

7

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

594

4%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

450

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Banks and Lenders bTaseecldeitceoodnminthEPequtuoeitpnamtleneAuntmrizabonednraMovfo.CbASirlNpeaSfioerar,vuNidcoea.sn1d5-o1t5h2er11coamrcphlaiviendts

on Ap44ri00l 2228, 2016

3% 3%

from Tennessee consumers

(15,893).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Tennessee Victims = 4,982

Identity Theft Types Reported by Tennessee Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 2 Credit Card Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,035 970 569
551 402 187 1,223 272

Percentage1 21% 19% 11%
11% 8% 4% 25% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 4,982 victims reporting from Tennessee. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 60 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 247 of 285

TEXAS Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 92,341

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Texas Consumers = 60,633

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Texas Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

7,965

13%

2

Internet Services

3,284

5%

3

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

2,986

5%

4

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

2,715

4%

5

Television and Electronic Media

2,381

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

2,197

4%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

1,773

3%

8

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

1,620

3%

9 10
1Percentages

Banks and Lenders

Computer Equipment and Software

are

based cited

on in

PthueetnotetalAnriuzmonbaervo. fACrpSaNio,frNaou.d1a5n-d15o2th1e1r

archived on A11p,,45ri49l 3528, 2016

3% 2%

complaints from Texas consumers

(60,633).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Texas Victims = 31,708

Identity Theft Types Reported by Texas Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Employment-Related Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Credit Card Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Phone or Utilities Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 8,545 5,596 4,620
3,418 3,204 1,401 6,455 1,224

Percentage1 27% 18% 15%
11% 10% 4% 20% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 31,708 victims reporting from Texas. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 61 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 248 of 285

UTAH Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 9,120

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Utah Consumers = 7,345

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Utah Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

851

12%

2

Internet Services

458

6%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

356

5%

4

Health Care

313

4%

5

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

309

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

257

3%

7

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

254

3%

8

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

249

3%

9 10
1Percentages

Computer Equipment and Software Television and Electronic Media
are bciateseddinonPutheenttoetaAlrinzuomnabevr. oAfrpCaSioN,

No. 15-15211 archived on Ap11ri66l 9228, 2016

2% 2%

fraud and other complaints from Utah consumers

(7,345).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Utah Victims = 1,775

Identity Theft Types Reported by Utah Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Employment-Related Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 345 289 208
178 178 76 486
97

Percentage1 19% 16% 12%
10% 10% 4% 27% 5%

1Percentages are based on the 1,775 victims reporting from Utah. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 62 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 249 of 285

VERMONT Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 1,831

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Vermont Consumers = 1,535

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Vermont Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

134

9%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

94

6%

3

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

88

6%

4

Internet Services

87

6%

5

Television and Electronic Media

74

5%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

51

3%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

48

3%

8

Internet Auction

41

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Credit Cards

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

based on the total cited in Puente

Anruizmobnear

vo.fACrSpaNiof,raNuod.

15-15211 and other

archived on Apri33l 9828, 2016

3% 2%

complaints from Vermont consumers

(1,535).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Vermont Victims = 296

Identity Theft Types Reported by Vermont Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Bank Fraud2 4 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 5 Loan Fraud 6 Employment-Related Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 85 46
38 28
9 8 73 18

Percentage1 29% 16%
13% 9% 3% 3% 25% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 296 victims reporting from Vermont. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 63 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 250 of 285

VIRGINIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 31,044

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Virginia Consumers = 24,695

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

3,091

13%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,533

6%

3

Internet Services

1,385

6%

4

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

1,056

4%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

1,038

4%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

965

4%

7

Banks and Lenders

700

3%

8

Auto Related Complaints

601

2%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Television and Electronic Computer Equipment and

based on the total cited in Puente

Anurimzobnear

Media Software
ov.f ACrSpNaiofr,aNuod.

15-15211 archived on Ap55ri56l 3328, 2016

2% 2%

and other complaints from Virginia consumers

(24,695).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Virginia Victims = 6,349

Identity Theft Types Reported by Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,475 996 683
673 480 287 1,674 429

Percentage1 23% 16% 11%
11% 8% 5% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 6,349 victims reporting from Virginia. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 64 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 251 of 285

WASHINGTON Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 27,585

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Washington Consumers = 21,730

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Washington Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

2,010

9%

2

Internet Services

1,507

7%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

1,165

5%

4

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

944

4%

5

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

843

4%

6

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

723

3%

7

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

689

3%

8

Computer Equipment and Software

578

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Television and Electronic Media

Health
based on cited

CtihnaerPetuoetanltenuAmribzeornoafvC. ASNrpafrioa,udNoa.n1d5o-t1h5e2r1c1omarpclhaiivnetsd

on Ap55ri23l 7228, 2016 from Washington

2% 2%
consumers

(21,730).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Washington Victims = 5,855

Identity Theft Types Reported by Washington Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Employment-Related Fraud 4 Phone or Utilities Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 1,299
773 699 683 471 204 1,623 347

Percentage1 22%
13% 12% 12% 8% 3% 28% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 5,855 victims reporting from Washington. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 65 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 252 of 285

WEST VIRGINIA Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 4,575

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from West Virginia Consumers = 3,709

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by West Virginia Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

393

11%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

222

6%

3

Internet Services

169

5%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

153

4%

5

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

143

4%

6

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

136

4%

7

Television and Electronic Media

122

3%

8

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

111

3%

9 10 1Percentages are

basBaBetua-dcHnsiitokoennsmedasteihsnnedPOPltLpaoupneteansonldrttneeuurnAsmirtbiizeeosr,noEafmvC.pSAloNrypmfariaeoun,dtNAaong. de1n5oc-ti1he5esr2a1cno1dmaWprclohariivkne-tsdforonmApW1ri80el 49s2t8V, 2ir0g1in6ia

3% 2% consumers

(3,709).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from West Virginia Victims = 866

Identity Theft Types Reported by West Virginia Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Phone or Utilities Fraud 3 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 4 Bank Fraud2 5 Employment-Related Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 198 133 102
98 44 33 228 61

Percentage1 23% 15% 12%
11% 5% 4% 26% 7%

1Percentages are based on the 866 victims reporting from West Virginia. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 66 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 253 of 285

WISCONSIN Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 16,294

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Wisconsin Consumers = 13,142

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Wisconsin Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

1,045

8%

2

Internet Services

930

7%

3

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

834

6%

4

Television and Electronic Media

679

5%

5

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

600

5%

6

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

500

4%

7

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

484

4%

8

Health Care

399

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

Computer Equipment and Software bCasrecedidteiotdnBintuhrPeeuatouetsna,tleInnAufomrirzmboeanrtaioovfn.CFASurNprnaifisorha,ueNrdsoa.ann1dd5-oR1t5hep2ero1r1ctoaUmrscpehlraisviendts

on Ap33ri99l 1528, 2016

3% 3%

from Wisconsin consumers

(13,142).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Wisconsin Victims = 3,152

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wisconsin Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Bank Fraud2 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 695 484 406 357
320 133 720 192

Percentage1 22% 15% 13% 11%
10% 4% 23% 6%

1Percentages are based on the 3,152 victims reporting from Wisconsin. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 67 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 254 of 285

WYOMING Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Figures
January 1 - December 31, 2008
Total Number of Identity Theft, Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints = 1,647

Fraud and Other Complaints Count from Wyoming Consumers = 1,397

Top 10 Fraud and Other Complaint Categories Reported by Wyoming Consumers

Rank Top Categories

Complaints Percentage1

1

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

130

9%

2

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

99

7%

3

Internet Services

87

6%

4

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

52

4%

5

Television and Electronic Media

46

3%

6

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

45

3%

7

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

43

3%

8

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

43

3%

9 10
1Percentages

are

bCTaeosclmeeitdcepodoumntienrtEhPEqeuquteuiopnitpmatemlenAneuntrimtzaonabndnedarMoSvof.obACftirwlSpeNaaSrieoefrr,avNuicdoe.as1n5d-1o5th2e1r1caormchpilvaeindtsonfroAmpriW33l 162y8o,m20in1g6cons23u%%mers

(1,397).

Identity Theft Complaints Count from Wyoming Victims = 250

Identity Theft Types Reported by Wyoming Victims

Rank Identity Theft Type 1 Credit Card Fraud 2 Bank Fraud2 3 Phone or Utilities Fraud 4 Employment-Related Fraud 5 Government Documents or Benefits Fraud 6 Loan Fraud Other Attempted Identity Theft

Complaints 61
35 31 27 18
9 77
9

Percentage1 24%
14% 12% 11% 7% 4% 31% 4%

1Percentages are based on the 250 victims reporting from Wyoming. Note that CSN identity theft complaints may be coded under multiple theft types. 2Includes fraud involving checking and savings accounts and electronic fund transfers.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 68 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 255 of 285
Appendix A1: The Consumer Sentinel Network
Consumer Sentinel is the unique investigative cyber tool that provides law enforcement members of the Consumer Sentinel Network secure access to millions of consumer complaints. Consumer Sentinel is free to any federal, state or local law enforcement agency. In addition, Consumer Sentinel information is also available to select international law enforcement authorities. Consumer Sentinel is based on the premise that sharing information can make law enforcement even more effective. To that end, the Consumer Sentinel Network provides law enforcement members with access to consumer complaints provided directly to the FTC, as well as providing members with access to complaints shared by other data contributors.
www.FTC.gov/Sentinel

The Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse was launched in November 1999 and is the sole national repository of consumer complaints about identity theft. The Clearinghouse provides specific investigative material for law

enforcement and broader reports that provide insight to both private and public sector partners on ways to reduce the

incidence of identity theft. Information in the Clearinghouse is available to law enforcement members via the

Consumer Sentinel Network. This access enables law enforcers to readily spot identity theft problems in their own

backyards, and perpetrators.

to

coordciinteadteinwPituhenotteheArrilzaownaenv.foArrcpeamio,enNtoo. f1f5i-c1e5r2s1w1haerrcehitvheeddoantaArperivl e2a8l,s2c0o1m6 mwwonws.FchTeCm.gesovo/ridtheft

Econsumer.gov was created in April 2001 to gather and share cross-border e-commerce complaints in order to respond to the challenges of multinational Internet fraud, and enhance consumer confidence in e-commerce. The

multilingual public Web site provides general information about consumer protection in all countries that belong to the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network, contact information for consumer protection authorities in those countries, and an online complaint form. All information is available in English, French,

German, Korean, Polish, and Spanish. Using the existing Consumer Sentinel Network, the incoming complaints

are shared through the government Web site with participating consumer protection law enforcers from 23 nations.

www.econsumer.gov

Consumer Sentinel/Military, which was established in September 2002, is a project of the Federal Trade

Commission and the Department of Defense to identify and target consumer protection issues that affect members

of the United States Armed Forces and their families. Consumer Sentinel/Military also provides a gateway to

consumer education materials covering a wide range of consumer protection issues, such as auto leasing, identity

theft, and work-at-home scams. Members of the United States Armed Forces can enter complaints directly into

Consumer Sentinel. This information is used by law enforcement agencies, members of the Judge Advocate

General staff, and others in the Department of Defense to help protect armed services members and their families

from consumer protection-related problems.

www.FTC.gov/sentinel/military

Federal Trade Commission

Page 69 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 256 of 285

Appendix A2: Consumer Sentinel Network Major Data Contributors1 January 1 – December 31, 2008

Canada's Ph oneBus ters
(Fraud) 3%

Others (Fraud & IDT)
5%

FTC "877 ID THEFT"
(IDT) 17%

Better Business Bu reau s 2 (Fraud) 11%

FTC "877 FTC HELP"
(Fraud) 6%

FTC -

"877 FTC HELP"

Internet Crime

(Other)

Complaint Center

11%

(Fraud)

23%
cited

in

Puente

AWriezboCFnToamCvp-.laAinrtpsaio,
(Other) 11%

No.

15-15211 archived
FTC Web Complaints
(Fraud) 6%

on

AWpreilb2CF8To,mC2p-0la1i6nts
(IDT) 7%

1Percentages are based on the total number of Consumer Sentinel Network complaints for the 2008 calendar year (1,223,370). The type of complaints provided by the organization is indicated in parentheses.
2For a list of Better Business Bureaus contributing to the Consumer Sentinel Network, see Appendix A4.

Data Contributors
FTC - "877 ID THEFT" FTC - "877 FTC HELP" (Fraud) FTC - "877 FTC HELP" (Other) FTC - Web Complaints IDT FTC - Web Complaints Fraud FTC - Web Complaints Other Internet Crime Complaint Center Better Business Bureaus2 Canada's PhoneBusters Others
U.S. Postal Inspection Service Identity Theft Assistance Center National Fraud Information Center Other Data Contributors 4

CY - 2006

Complaints Percentages3

179,685

20%

57,045

6%

114,288

13%

59,140

7%

75,060

8%

101,789

11%

201,953

23%

20,197

2%

33,720

4%

47,189

5%

27,610

3%

6,716

1%

10,403

1%

2,460

<1%

CY - 2007

Complaints Percentages3

186,814

18%

49,498

5%

102,671

10%

56,655

5%

77,862

7%

111,093

11%

208,393

20%

169,332

16%

28,477

3%

59,434

6%

24,308

2%

15,378

1%

17,829

2%

1,919

<1%

CY - 2008

Complaints Percentages3

209,351

17%

72,414

6%

136,660

11%

83,536

7%

78,423

6%

128,568

11%

276,452

23%

132,265

11%

43,667

3%

62,034

5%

29,390

2%

20,616

2%

11,055

1%

973

<1%

Total Number of Complaints

890,066

1,050,229

1,223,370

3Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; and CY-2008 = 1,223,370. 4For a list of other organizations contributing to the Consumer Sentinel Network, see Appendix A3.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 70 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 257 of 285

Appendix A3: Consumer Sentinel Network Other Data Contributors January 1 – December 31, 2008

Federal Agencies Federal Bureau of Investigation US Attorney's Office Western District of Pennsylvania
Attorneys General Offices Arkansas Attorney General Colorado Attorney General Maine Attorney General North Dakota Attorney General

Other State Agencies

Minnesota Department of Commerce

North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions

Washington Securities Division WLCoaiclsiacfolorPnnsoiialni,cDIen/egSplheaewrrtimoffoceiDdtnetdePopionaflPirFcutieemnnDeatenneAtcpsriiazaorlntImanves.tnAittrupatiioo,nNso.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2016

Iowa, Clinton Police Department

Maine, Lincoln County Sheriff's Office

Michigan, Genesee County Sheriff's Department

Michigan, South Haven Police Department

New Jersey, Bergenfield Police Department

New York, Town of New Hartford Police Department

New York, Office of the Sheriff of Niagara County

North Carolina, Sheriff's Office of Cabarrus County

North Carolina, Chowan County Sheriff's Office

Pennsylvania, Palmerton Police Department

South Dakota, Miner County Sheriff's Office

Washington, Whatcom County Sheriff's Office

Wisconsin, Adams County Sheriff's Department

Others U.S. Army, Fort Dix Police Xerox Corporation
Federal Trade Commission

Page 71 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 258 of 285

Appendix A4: Consumer Sentinel Network Better Business Bureau Data Contributors
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Better Business Bureaus

Nebraska, Omaha

Alabama, Birmingham

Nevada, Reno

Alabama, Huntsville

New Hampshire, Concord

Alberta, Edmonton (Canada)

North Carolina, Charlotte

Arizona, Phoenix

North Carolina, Greensboro

Arizona, Tucson

North Carolina, Raleigh

Arkansas, Little Rock

Ohio, Canton

British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada)

Ohio, Cincinnati

California, San Joaquin Valley (Fresno)

Ohio, Cleveland

California, Silicon Valley (San Jose)

Ohio, Columbus

Colorado, Colorado Springs

Ohio, Dayton

Colorado, Denver

Ohio, Lima

Colorado, Fort Collins

Ohio, Toledo

Delaware, Wilmington Florida, Clearwater FGGGHleaeeoowoorrrriadgggiaiiiiaaa,,c,,,iHPtSAMeeodantnavlisancoaanolnPcutnnoaulaul,eahnAtethAernizsoannadv.NAorrptahioe,aNstoG. 1e5o-r1g5i2a11

aOOOrchkknilltvaaaehhrdioooomm,nKaaA,,iptTOrciluhk2lels8ana,he2or0m(1C6aaCnaitdya) Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Scranton South Carolina, Columbia South Carolina, Greenville

Illinois, Chicago

Tennessee, Chattanooga

Illinois, Peoria

Tennessee, Knoxville

Indiana, Evansville

Tennessee, Nashville

Indiana, Fort Wayne

Texas, Abilene

Indiana, Indianapolis

Texas, Amarillo

Iowa, Des Moines

Texas, Austin

Kansas, Kansas City

Texas, Brazos Valley

Kansas, Topeka

Texas, Corpus Christi

Louisiana, Acadiana (Lafayette)

Texas, Dallas

Louisiana, Baton Rouge

Texas, El Paso

Louisiana, Lake Charles

Texas, Houston

Louisiana, New Orleans

Texas, South Plains

Louisiana, Shreveport

Texas, Tyler

Maryland, Baltimore

Texas, Wichita Falls

Massachusetts, Natick (Eastern Massachusetts, Utah, Salt Lake City

Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont)

Virginia, Roanoke

Massachusetts, West Springfield

Washington, Seattle

Michigan, Grand Rapids

Washington, Spokane

Minnesota, Saint Paul

Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Missouri, Saint Louis

Missouri, Springfield

Federal Trade Commission

Page 72 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 259 of 285

Appendix B1: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Descriptions

1 Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair: The promise of a loan or credit card that requires you to pay a fee first; worthless credit card loss protection and insurance programs; the promise that accurate negative information can be removed from your credit file for a fee; etc. (Fraud Category)
2 Auto Related Complaints: Misleading or deceptive claims regarding auto warranty expiration or extension; repair/maintenance issues with newly purchased used or new cars, including dissatisfaction with service provided by auto mechanics; price fixing and price gouging concerns against gas stations and oil companies; etc. (Other Category)

3 Banks and Lenders: Deceptive or predatory mortgage lending practices; problems with modification of mortgage terms; miscellaneous customer service and account issues with bank products, including fees and overdraft charges from national banks; etc. (Other Category)
4 Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-at-Home Plans: Misleading franchise and Internet-based business opportunities; unfulfilled, misleading and deceptive job placement opportunities, offers, and services by employment-service firms for up-front fees; wealth building and invention promotion plans that don’t make good on their promises; etc. (Fraud Category)
5 Charitable Solicitations: Misleading pitches for donations to benefit local service organizations; solicitations for bogus charity or relief organization; etc. (Fraud Category)

6 Clothing, Textiles and Jewelry: Fake or replica goods passed off as genuine; order fulfillment problems; failure to honor

7 8 9

rCioCfuCnrenraorrafdwuueemcendddcarpduuiniinttulrtoegeaBCtndrtefeuatrrrorreecirEnedteruefausqaord:ununnriasAmtinp,upuccaoItmaachntlirloioefodcuccornnyirniorztt;eomtefedeafroddetinacrtfrtsdia.srnbioi/eolipS(fpPslnOthlowoituifFntorsahtetghuwrernbiereirnatysnieigCrnsnicuevsaAsao:ehetttrnasetseie,Plsgztrlimuiooragsnomtrnapcaiybotatelne)lsunredvsddsom;.iivRansisAemnpgerwrdupppittinhodeaetthrerodiemotwrcpi,eUionhnssNfmolsstooieonrpbrarae.muldst;e1te:saee5;atCcrti-cecoh1srct.eanoc5edn;f.(s2tOigCswt1(etFtRR1ashor,rAee/aaeilpruna,rpoCcdtqherrhuaaotCfiiirtvvnreedayieeggtwdesdooeAag,rnsroocygerir)nce,neyrnaad)eAcndidpytdeirtdq(icilrCusoe2apRpmt8ueoAp,trep)u2ts;hto0,eeor1artncnf6eeu.dqr(hunoOeiivplstpehhm;reecerdrhniCpaftfrrapiogtcueveugrsilcd;othiereasyss)es;

10 Debt Management and Credit Counseling: Unfulfilled promises by credit counseling organizations to provide free services, send payments to creditors in a timely manner, or reduce interest rates on credit card debt, eliminate late and overthe-limit fees; etc. (Fraud Category)

11 Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams: Letters or e-mails offering the "opportunity" to share in a percentage of millions of dollars that a self-proclaimed government official is trying to transfer illegally out of a foreign country in return for money, bank account numbers, or other identifying information from the victim; fraudulent schemes involving foreign lotteries, mystery shoppers, or Internet purchases/classified ads in which a counterfeit check overpayment is received along with a request to wire back the difference immediately after check deposit, leaving the victim responsible for the funds withdrawn; etc. (Fraud Category)
12 Grants: Deceptive practices by businesses or individuals marketing either government grant opportunities or financial aid assistance services; problems with student loan processors, debt collectors collecting on defaulted student loans, and diploma mills and other unaccredited educational institutions; etc. (Other Category)

13 Health Care: Fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive claims for vision correction procedures; dietary supplements; weight loss products or services; impotency treatments; health spas and equipments; infertility services; sunscreens; HIV test kits; etc. (Fraud Category)

14 Home Repair, Improvement and Products: Defective furniture or appliances; service or warranty-related issues; furniture or appliance delivery problems, including receiving wrong or incomplete products; problems with home repair services and contractors; etc. (Other Category)
15 Identity Theft: When someone appropriates your personal identifying information (like your Social Security number or credit card account number) to commit fraud or theft. (Identity Theft Category)

16 Internet Auction: Non-delivery of goods; delivery of goods that are less valuable than advertised; lack of delivery in a timely way; failure to disclose all the relevant information about the product or terms of the sale; etc. (Fraud Category)

Federal Trade Commission

Page 73 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 260 of 285

Appendix B1: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Descriptions

17 Internet Services: Trial offers from Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"); difficulty canceling an ISP account; issues with Internet entertainment services; undisclosed charges; website design and hosting services; spyware, adware, and malware issues; etc. (Fraud Category)

18 Investment Related Complaints: Promises of riches that don’t pan out in day trading; gold and gems; FCC licenses; etc. (Fraud Category)

19 Magazines and Buyers Clubs: Pitches for "free," "pre-paid," or "special" magazine subscription deals and offers for club memberships that claim to help you save money when buying a particular product or service (CDs, books, etc.). (Fraud Category)

20 Multi-Level Marketing, Pyramids and Chain Letters: Network plans that offer commissions on the sale of goods by you and distributors you recruit. (Fraud Category)

21 Office Supplies and Services: Fraudulent or deceptive offers for toner, copier paper, maintenance supplies, equipment maintenance contracts; classified advertising and yellow page invoice scams; website cramming schemes; etc. (Fraud Category)
22 Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries: Promotions for "free" prizes for a fee; foreign lotteries and sweepstakes offered through the phone, fax, e-mail or mail; etc. (Fraud Category)

23 Real Estate: Complaints about deceptive and misleading practices involving real estate agents and companies, real estate

24 25 26

a(SrCToTeOpfheaefptsultloheeerespaegcpra-ivorohlasimrCeottcyo-rnea)sHEtheieasooqSgnsmnuouedoirreeprayvsmpa),aicpnaegersdnuasw:tiaCcsreaiaCaatlnelnlthsddataaeelsroMierngv,wgeiowPcisStbeiuhaftsiohell,aeernsrpsecSst:ueoaaerllcPrcAlievshrarsoiattictzoebsaeoedlts"eesn:tpmoamcrPloselarv,m-nod.fssbreiuAueulclevermthpm"iaaanasnsttiesuoshwrm,u,evirniNtbIechdneaoeitcrlss.esec;er;1llnstlou5eteaspxn-tet1htae(d5uomnptn2cohereo1toosss1isprntaoisezcag,rrelretfupdcyadashicmpiglinuhvaeagraemrnesrdaag;,tugoeieoncestndtccmis.eloAuuelnci(dnpvOhitsren,aitarlhgals2eoness8crnde)h,C,rtrav2iteamreia0gtclelee1eeg,eps6aosnhfgtroooayrnntre)e-eecd,mlaeaollnelrisndvmtcesdoraeyanivl,ns.euad(lnmFoqdpreuaerausrlsdit.y

didn’t make; unauthorized switching of consumers’ phone service provider; misleading pre-paid phone card offers; etc.

(Fraud Category)

27 Television and Electronic Media: Problems with TV reception, installation, billing, and promotions for cable/satellite

providers; miscellaneous problems with music/DVD purchases. (Other Category)

28 Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection: Debt collector calls repeatedly or continuously; falsely represents the amount or status of debt; fails to send written notice of debt; falsely threatens suit; uses profane language; fails to identify self as debt collector; and/or violates other provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Other Category)

29 Travel, Vacations and Timeshare Plans: Deceptive offers for "free" or low-cost vacations; cut-rate student travel packages; misleading timeshare offers; etc. (Fraud Category)

30 Video Games: Problems with video game companies, defective products, billing or collection, contracts, customer service, delivery, guarantees or warrantees, repairs, service; etc. (Other Category)

Federal Trade Commission

Page 74 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 261 of 285

Appendix B2: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Categories1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Category

CY - 2006

CY - 2007

CY - 2008

Complaints / Percentages Complaints / Percentages Complaints / Percentages

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

10,869

1.22%

15,322

1.46%

17,263

1.41%

Auto Related Complaints

9,494

1.07%

7,898

0.75%

14,278

1.17%

Banks and Lenders

24,346

2.74%

26,277

2.50%

22,890

1.87%

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-at-Home Plans 11,921

1.34%

17,858

1.70%

20,286

1.66%

Charitable Solicitations

1,708

0.19%

2,016

0.19%

1,889

0.15%

Clothing, Textiles and Jewelry

1,284

0.14%

1,482

0.14%

1,662

0.14%

Computer Equipment and Software

7,794

0.88%

26,838

2.56%

21,442

1.75%

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

44,841

5.04%

37,596

3.58%

34,940

2.86%

Credit Cards

6,192

0.70%

7,027

0.67%

13,196

1.08%

Debt Management and Credit Counseling

2,437

0.27%

3,414

0.33%

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

Grants

Health Care

Home Repair, Improvement and Products

Identity Theft Internet Auction

cited in Puente

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

20,524

2.31%

No57.,,24173579-1521001..58a94r%%chived

6,619

0.74%

246,174 27.66%

33,660

3.78%

o3n43,,A6940p98ril
15,961 6,445
259,266 26,751

28, 23.0310%6
0.37% 1.52% 0.61% 24.69% 2.55%

6,718 38,505
2,634 16,275
7,635 313,982
17,294

0.55% 3.15% 0.22% 1.33% 0.62% 25.67% 1.41%

Internet Services

33,534

3.77%

46,173

4.40%

52,102

4.26%

Investment Related Complaints

3,617

0.41%

13,713

1.31%

7,980

0.65%

Magazines and Buyers Clubs

8,294

0.93%

12,204

1.16%

10,188

0.83%

Multi-Level Marketing, Pyramids and Chain Letters

1,384

0.16%

3,117

0.30%

1,788

0.15%

Office Supplies and Services

5,725

0.64%

9,408

0.90%

9,091

0.74%

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

45,605

5.12%

34,130

3.25%

33,340

2.73%

Real Estate

1,804

0.20%

9,381

0.89%

6,573

0.54%

Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

47,218

5.30%

66,281

6.31%

52,615

4.30%

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

9,337

1.05%

35,496

3.38%

22,387

1.83%

Telephone Services

10,203

1.15%

8,179

0.78%

9,300

0.76%

Television and Electronic Media

6,883

0.77%

27,647

2.63%

25,930

2.12%

Third Party and Creditor Debt Collection

88,608

9.96%

89,934

8.56%

104,642

8.55%

Travel, Vacations and Timeshare Plans

6,718

0.75%

15,076

1.44%

13,200

1.08%

Video Games

134

0.02%

694

0.07%

1,068

0.09%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes, so percentages total more than 100%.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 75 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 262 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Advance-Fee Loans and Credit Protection/Repair

Product Service Advance-Fee Loans, Credit Arrangers Credit Card Loss Protection Credit Repair Recovery\Refund Companies

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 9,625 168 752 328 10,869

Percentage1
1.08% 0.02% 0.08% 0.04% 1.22%

CY - 2007 11,253 442 3,293 338 15,322

Percentage1
1.07% 0.04% 0.31% 0.03% 1.46%

CY - 2008 10,185 538 3,326 3,221 17,263

Percentage1
0.83% 0.04% 0.27% 0.26% 1.41%

Auto Related Complaints

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Auto Gas

396

0.04%

241

0.02%

Auto Oil

40

0.00%

32

0.00%

Auto Parts & Repairs

1,929

0.22%

1,698

0.16%

Auto Rentals

224

0.03%

232

0.02%

Auto\New

1,410

0.16%

1,492

0.14%

Auto\Other

2,078

0.23%

1,660

0.16%

Auto\Used

2,818

0.32%

2,019

0.19%

Cars (from econsumer)

493

0.06%

442

0.04%

Leasing: Automobile Dealer\Manufacturer

155

0.02%

141

0.01%

Banks and Lenders
Product Service ATM-Electronic Banking Bank Lending Bank, Federal Charter Bank, FR System Bank, National

Procedures
cited

in

Count/Percentage:
Puente Arizona v.

9,494
ArpCaYi11o-922,390N06o.
905 2,503 8,752

1.07%

7,898

15P-e1rc5e2nt1a1ge1archCivYed- 2o00n7

0.02%

520

0.01%

210

0.10%

973

0.28%

2,525

0.98%

9,464

April 20.87,5%2016
Percentage1 0.05% 0.02% 0.09% 0.24% 0.90%

Bank, Non-FR

1,680

0.19%

1,484

0.14%

Banks (from econsumer)

356

0.04%

417

0.04%

Credit Union Lending

60

0.01%

57

0.01%

Finance Company Lending

1,296

0.15%

1,414

0.13%

Mortgage Lender

6,695

0.75%

7,203

0.69%

Other Lender

1,848

0.21%

2,090

0.20%

Retailer Credit

131

0.01%

146

0.01%

Count/Percentage: 24,346

2.74%

26,277

2.50%

CY - 2008 655 15 2,437 257 1,618 5,729 3,159 351 98
14,278
CY - 2008 271 583 997 1,366 6,216 1,009 281 109 1,866 7,748 2,443 215
22,890

Percentage1 0.05% 0.00% 0.20% 0.02% 0.13% 0.47% 0.26% 0.03% 0.01% 1.17%
Percentage1 0.02% 0.05% 0.08% 0.11% 0.51% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.15% 0.63% 0.20% 0.02% 1.87%

Business Opportunities, Employment Agencies and Work-at-Home Plans

Product Service Bus Opps\Franchises\Distributorships Employ Agencies\Job Counsel\Overseas Work Inventions\Idea Promotions Work-At-Home Plans

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 2,973 4,504 483 4,004 11,921

Percentage1
0.33% 0.51% 0.05% 0.45% 1.34%

CY - 2007 4,641 6,452 675 6,122 17,858

Percentage1
0.44% 0.61% 0.06% 0.58% 1.70%

CY - 2008 5,027 8,317 402 6,564 20,286

Percentage1
0.41% 0.68% 0.03% 0.54% 1.66%

Charitable Solicitations
Product Service Charitable Solicitations

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 1,708 1,708

Percentage1
0.19% 0.19%

CY - 2007 2,016 2,016

Percentage1
0.19% 0.19%

CY - 2008 1,889 1,889

Percentage1
0.15% 0.15%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 76 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 263 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Clothing, Textiles and Jewelry

Product Service Garments & Wool or Leather Goods Jewelry\Watches Textiles

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 751 504 30 1,284

Percentage1
0.08% 0.06% 0.00% 0.14%

CY - 2007 850 598 34 1,482

Percentage1
0.08% 0.06% 0.00% 0.14%

CY - 2008 1,004 600 58 1,662

Computer Equipment and Software

Product Service Computers: Equipment\Software

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 7,794 7,794

Percentage1
0.88% 0.88%

CY - 2007 26,838 26,838

Percentage1
2.56% 2.56%

CY - 2008 21,442 21,442

Credit Bureaus, Information Furnishers and Report Users

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Credit Bureaus

21,415

2.41%

18,867

1.80%

Credit Information Furnishers

22,638

2.54%

17,556

1.67%

Credit Report Users

2,419

0.27%

2,219

0.21%

Count/Percentage: 44,841

5.04%

37,596

3.58%

Credit Cards
Product Service Credit Cards
Debt Management

and

CrceidteitdCionuPnuseelCinnotgeunAt/Priezrocennatagve.:

ArpCaY66i,,o-11992,220N06o.

15P-e1rc5e2nt1a1ge1archCivYed- 2o00n7

0.70%

7,027

0.70%

7,027

April 28, 2016
Percentage1 0.67% 0.67%

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Debt Management/Credit Counseling

2,437

0.27%

3,414

0.33%

Count/Percentage: 2,437

0.27%

3,414

0.33%

CY - 2008 20,619 12,521 2,279 34,940
CY - 2008 13,196 13,196
CY - 2008 6,718 6,718

Foreign Money Offers and Counterfeit Check Scams

Product Service Counterfeit Check Scams Nigerian/Other Foreign Money Offers (not prizes)
Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 1
20,523 20,524

Percentage1
0.00% 2.31% 2.31%

CY - 2007 -
34,649 34,649

Percentage1
3.30% 3.30%

CY - 2008 5,747 33,230 38,505

Grants

Product Service Grants: Non-Educational Scholarships\Educational Grants

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 5,088 192 5,277

Percentage1
0.57% 0.02% 0.59%

CY - 2007 3,734 177 3,908

Percentage1
0.36% 0.02% 0.37%

CY - 2008 2,477 157 2,634

Percentage1 0.08% 0.05% 0.00% 0.14%
Percentage1 1.75% 1.75%
Percentage1 1.69% 1.02% 0.19% 2.86%
Percentage1 1.08% 1.08%
Percentage1 0.55% 0.55%
Percentage1 0.47% 2.72% 3.15%
Percentage1 0.20% 0.01% 0.22%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 77 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 264 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Health Care

Product Service
Health Care: Dental Health Care: Diet Products\Centers\Plans Health Care: Dietary Supplements\Herbal Remedies Health Care: Drugs-OTC\Prescription Health Care: Eye Care Health Care: Hearing Health Care: Impotence\Infertility\Contraceptives Health Care: Medical DisCount/Percentage: Plans\Cards\Insurance Health Care: Other Medical Treatments Health Care: Other Products\Supplies Health Care: Serious Disease\Ailment
Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006
310 1,315 696 1,195 666 152
81 1,098 601 1,294
40 7,439

Percentage1
0.03% 0.15% 0.08% 0.13% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.12% 0.07% 0.15% 0.00% 0.84%

CY - 2007
337 6,682 1,337 771 1,304 385 113 1,420 715 2,867
42 15,961

Percentage1
0.03% 0.64% 0.13% 0.07% 0.12% 0.04% 0.01% 0.14% 0.07% 0.27% 0.00% 1.52%

CY - 2008
353 7,689 942 744 1,065 337
28 1,321 757 3,036
15 16,275

Home Repair, Improvement and Products

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Air Cleaners-Filtration\Ozone

33

0.00%

24

0.00%

Heating and Air Conditioning

247

0.03%

258

0.02%

Home Appliances Home Furnishings Home Protection Devices Home Repair Household Non-Durable Goods Housing Insulation Products\Materials Lawn Care Products\Services Plumbing Products

cited

in

1,481

2,038

252

1,621

166

PuenCtoeunAt/Priezrocennatagve.:

557
Arpai12o55,5

No.

55

6,619

0.17% 0.23% 0.03% 0.18%
15-1005..002621%%1
0.00% 0.02% 0.01% 0.74%

1,534 2,132
archive131,d356406o2 n
432 32 139 58 6,445

April

2008..12,50%%2016
0.03% 0.13% 0.02% 0.04% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.61%

Identity Theft

CY - 2008
31 257 1,672 2,127 523 1,958 83 878 18 63 42 7,635

Product Service Identity Theft

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 246,174 246,174

Percentage1
27.66% 27.66%

CY - 2007 259,266 259,266

Percentage1
24.69% 24.69%

CY - 2008 313,982 313,982

Internet Auction

Product Service Internet Auction

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 33,660 33,660

Percentage1
3.78% 3.78%

CY - 2007 26,751 26,751

Percentage1
2.55% 2.55%

CY - 2008 17,294 17,294

Internet Services

Product Service Internet Access Services Internet Information & Adult Services Internet Web Site Design\Promotion Spyware\Adware\Malware

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 17,441 9,557 2,250 4,303 33,534

Percentage1
1.96% 1.07% 0.25% 0.48% 3.77%

CY - 2007 27,191 9,565 4,620 4,853 46,173

Percentage1
2.59% 0.91% 0.44% 0.46% 4.40%

CY - 2008 25,978 20,015 3,747 2,402 52,102

Percentage1 0.03% 0.63% 0.08% 0.06% 0.09% 0.03% 0.00% 0.11% 0.06% 0.25% 0.00% 1.33%
Percentage1 0.00% 0.02% 0.14% 0.17% 0.04% 0.16% 0.01% 0.07% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.62%
Percentage1 25.67% 25.67%
Percentage1 1.41% 1.41%
Percentage1 2.12% 1.64% 0.31% 0.20% 4.26%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 78 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 265 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Investment Related Complaints

Product Service Invest: Advice, Seminars Invest: Art\Gems\Rare Coins Invest: Stocks\Commodity Futures Trading Investments: Other (note in comments)

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 211 222 883 2,304 3,617

Percentage1
0.02% 0.02% 0.10% 0.26% 0.41%

CY - 2007 508 163 1,247
11,801 13,713

Percentage1
0.05% 0.02% 0.12% 1.12% 1.31%

CY - 2008 283 171 1,205 6,327 7,980

Magazines and Buyers Clubs

Product Service Books Buyers Clubs (not travel or lottery) Magazines

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 1,194 1,665 5,440 8,294

Percentage1
0.13% 0.19% 0.61% 0.93%

CY - 2007 1,846 2,152 8,211 12,204

Percentage1
0.18% 0.20% 0.78% 1.16%

CY - 2008 1,381 775 8,039 10,188

Multi-Level Marketing, Pyramids and Chain Letters

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Multi-Level Mktg\Pyramids\Chain Letters

1,384

0.16%

3,117

0.30%

Office Supplies and Services
Product Service Office Supplies and Services Office Supplies: Toner Office: Ad Space\Directory Listings
cited

in

Count/Percentage: 1,384

PueCnoteunAt/Priezrocennatagve.:

ArpCaY1i,o-382,80N06o.
1,494 2,847 5,725

0.16%

3,117

15P-e1rc5e2nt1a1gea1 rchCivYed- 2o00n7

0.16%

3,189

0.17%

1,181

0.32%

5,043

0.64%

9,408

April 20.83,0%2016
Percentage1 0.30% 0.11% 0.48% 0.90%

CY - 2008 1,788 1,788
CY - 2008 3,106 854 5,135 9,091

Prizes, Sweepstakes and Lotteries

Product Service Lotteries\Lottery Ticket Buying Clubs Prizes\Sweepstakes\Gifts

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 14,453 31,305 45,605

Percentage1
1.62% 3.52% 5.12%

CY - 2007 13,519 20,777 34,130

Percentage1
1.29% 1.98% 3.25%

CY - 2008 8,730 24,773 33,340

Percentage1 0.02% 0.01% 0.10% 0.52% 0.65%
Percentage1 0.11% 0.06% 0.66% 0.83%
Percentage1 0.15% 0.15%
Percentage1 0.25% 0.07% 0.42% 0.74%
Percentage1 0.71% 2.02% 2.73%

Real Estate
Product Service Real Estate (not Timeshares)
Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales
Product Service Shop-at-Home and Catalog Sales

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 1,804 1,804

Percentage1
0.20% 0.20%

CY - 2007 9,381 9,381

Percentage1
0.89% 0.89%

CY - 2008 6,573 6,573

Percentage1
0.54% 0.54%

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 47,218 47,218

Percentage1
5.30% 5.30%

CY - 2007 66,281 66,281

Percentage1
6.31% 6.31%

CY - 2008 52,615 52,615

Percentage1
4.30% 4.30%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 79 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 266 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Telecom Equipment and Mobile Services

Product Service Mobile: Downloads Mobile: Premium Services Mobile: Rates/Advertising Telecom Equip (Cell Phones, Pagers, etc)

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 -
9,337 9,337

Percentage1
1.05% 1.05%

CY - 2007 -
35,496 35,496

Percentage1
3.38% 3.38%

CY - 2008 19 47 40
22,283 22,387

Percentage1
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.82% 1.83%

Telephone Services

Product Service
Telephone: Carrier Switching Telephone: Pay-Per-Call\Info Services Telephone: Prepaid Phone Cards Telephone: Rates\Advertising Unsolicited Faxes VoIP Services

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 615 6,310 647 631 1,498 545
10,203

Percentage1
0.07% 0.71% 0.07% 0.07% 0.17% 0.06% 1.15%

CY - 2007 578 4,524 1,053 485 891 671 8,179

Percentage1
0.06% 0.43% 0.10% 0.05% 0.08% 0.06% 0.78%

CY - 2008 930 6,141 763 314 710 455 9,300

Television and Electronic Media

Product Service DVD/Video/Film Music: All Formats Television (Programming and Advertisements) Television: Satellite & Cable
Third Party and Creditor cDiteebdt CinolPleucetinCotoneunAt/Priezrocennatagve.:

CY - 2006 603 620
Arpa56i1,,o48878,863No.

15P-e1r000c5...e0002n772t1%%%a1ge1archCivYe171,d-4655224o700n7

0.62%

25,278

0.77%

27,647

AprPile2rc8en, t2ag0e11 6
0.14% 0.07%
0.01%
2.41% 2.63%

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Creditor Debt Collection Third Party Debt Collection

Count/Percentage:

21,463 69,261 88,608

2.41% 7.78% 9.96%

20,095 71,004 89,934

1.91% 6.76% 8.56%

CY - 2008 983 476 203
24,274 25,930
CY - 2008 26,598 78,838 104,642

Travel, Vacations and Timeshare Plans

Product Service Timeshare Resales Timeshare Sales Travel\Vacations

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 214 936 5,584 6,718

Percentage1
0.02% 0.11% 0.63% 0.75%

CY - 2007 222 2,102
12,759 15,076

Percentage1
0.02% 0.20% 1.21% 1.44%

CY - 2008 325 2,025
10,857 13,200

Video Games

Product Service Video Games

Count/Percentage:

CY - 2006 134 134

Percentage1
0.02% 0.02%

CY - 2007 694 694

Percentage1
0.07% 0.07%

CY - 2008 1,068 1,068

Percentage1 0.08% 0.50% 0.06% 0.03% 0.06% 0.04% 0.76%
Percentage1 0.08% 0.04% 0.02% 1.98% 2.12%
Percentage1 2.17% 6.44% 8.55%
Percentage1 0.03% 0.17% 0.89% 1.08%
Percentage1 0.09% 0.09%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 80 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 267 of 285

Appendix B3: Consumer Sentinel Network Complaint Category Details1
Calendar Years 2006 through 2008

Other

Product Service

CY - 2006 Percentage1 CY - 2007 Percentage1

Alcoholic Beverages

32

0.00%

33

0.00%

Antiques\Collectibles

-

-

-

-

Children's Products

8

0.00%

9

0.00%

Children's Toys\Games

136

0.02%

232

0.02%

Contact Lenses

-

-

-

-

Dating Services

255

0.03%

277

0.03%

Door-to-Door Sales

51

0.01%

58

0.01%

Electric Utilities

201

0.02%

143

0.01%

Every Non-Credit Product\Service Code

160

0.02%

185

0.02%

Every Product\Service Code

6,683

0.75%

7,651

0.73%

Financial Planners

36

0.00%

24

0.00%

Fitness Center\Health Club

529

0.06%

434

0.04%

Food

468

0.05%

576

0.05%

Food Marketed for Health

33

0.00%

54

0.01%

Funeral Services

236

0.03%

202

0.02%

Gas Utilities

193

0.02%

93

0.01%

Green Card Application Services

147

0.02%

113

0.01%

Health Care Provider Billing

425

0.05%

482

0.05%

Insurance (Other than Medical)

1,197

0.13%

976

0.09%

Leasing: Business

Leasing: Consumer

Modeling Agencies\Services

Non-Alcoholic Beverages

Non-Merger (BC)

Other (Note in Comments)

Overseas Medical Schools\Other Universities

Personal Care Products Prepaid Legal Services Property\Inheritance Tracers Tobacco-Cigarettes

cited in Puente

Arizona

v.

756 307 289 104 23
Arp1a71i8o3,5,66N1 o.
202 93 198 58

0.08% 0.03% 0.03%
15-120005..00.020161%%%1
0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01%

1,026 450
archive78d374on
19 183,319
139 217 92 203 44

April

2008..10,04%%2016
0.07% 0.01% 0.00% 17.46% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00%

Trade\Vocational Schools

411

0.05%

368

0.04%

Unauthorized Debits or Charges for Unknown Products

1,249

0.14%

1,728

0.16%

Utilities

529

0.06%

543

0.05%

Water Purifiers

60

0.01%

65

0.01%

CY - 2008
55 25 55 197 46 93 17 58 61 21,191 21 194 771 27 241 61 93 521 1,098 600 364 619 70 10 303,198 40 372 52 398 50 539 2,163 908 26

Percentage1
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.73% 0.00% 0.02% 0.06% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.04% 0.09% 0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00% 24.78% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.18% 0.07% 0.00%

1Percentages are based on the total number of CSN complaints for each calendar year: CY-2006 = 890,066; CY-2007 = 1,050,229; CY-2008 = 1,223,370. Note that counts and percentages may not add up to the total in each category because CSN complaints may be coded under multiple product service codes.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 81 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 268 of 285

Appendix C: Consumer Sentinel Network Fraud Complaints

& Amount Paid Reported by State and the District of Columbia

January 1 – December 31, 2008

State Name

Total Fraud Total Amount Complaints Paid Reported

Complaints Reporting Amount Paid

Percentages Reporting Amount Paid

Average Amount
Paid1

Alabama

7,533

$10,854,316

6,344

84%

$1,711

Alaska

1,661

$1,781,296

1,417

85%

$1,257

Arizona

14,566

$36,135,373

12,404

85%

$2,913

Arkansas

3,923

$5,073,283

3,362

86%

$1,509

California

70,488

$250,522,780

60,815

86%

$4,119

Colorado

13,454

$79,396,468

11,661

87%

$6,809

Connecticut

5,900

$9,057,526

5,066

86%

$1,788

Delaware

1,558

$2,258,037

1,326

85%

$1,703

Dist. of Columbia 1,613

$4,433,411

1,353

84%

$3,277

Florida

37,074

$145,228,706

31,781

86%

$4,570

Georgia

17,598

$45,094,174

15,025

85%

$3,001

Hawaii

2,780

$7,921,111

2,441

88%

$3,245

Idaho

2,910

$4,502,364

2,531

87%

$1,779

Illinois

22,758

$51,576,272

19,442

85%

$2,653

Indiana

11,214

$13,811,324

9,490

85%

$1,455

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan
Minnescoitaed

in

4,390 5,326 5,787 6,208 2,281 13,338
Puent11e60,,A1933ri85zona
10,164

$6,550,251 $7,087,377 $15,971,027 $9,803,965
v$.$1A$10558r,,,p552a439406io,,,460,085N049 o.
$29,396,927 $28,125,828

3,711 4,597 4,950
15-1155,,294161671
11,542 9,437 13,574 8,419

archived

85%
on8866A%%pril
88% 84% 87% 86% 84% 83%

28,

2$011,7665
$1,542 $3,226 $1,793 $2,894 $9,383 $1,646 $2,166 $3,341

Mississippi

2,973

$6,892,487

2,606

88%

$2,645

Missouri

12,940

$17,648,436

10,914

84%

$1,617

Montana

1,673

$1,379,737

1,393

83%

$990

Nebraska

3,154

$6,420,756

2,674

85%

$2,401

Nevada

5,904

$21,699,470

5,201

88%

$4,172

New Hampshire

2,801

$4,316,602

2,381

85%

$1,813

New Jersey

16,681

$38,822,347

14,469

87%

$2,683

New Mexico

3,040

$5,378,082

2,607

86%

$2,063

New York

30,564

$67,444,846

26,342

86%

$2,560

North Carolina

16,508

$25,473,738

13,966

85%

$1,824

North Dakota

798

$1,107,389

683

86%

$1,621

Ohio

19,896

$34,430,914

16,765

84%

$2,054

Oklahoma

5,626

$8,470,889

4,915

87%

$1,723

Oregon

8,669

$15,203,244

7,410

85%

$2,052

Pennsylvania

21,276

$40,831,572

17,935

84%

$2,277

Rhode Island

1,683

$3,551,772

1,433

85%

$2,479

South Carolina

7,070

$14,176,206

6,093

86%

$2,327

South Dakota

994

$3,255,535

857

86%

$3,799

Tennessee

11,121

$29,989,944

9,675

87%

$3,100

Texas

40,485

$81,349,075

35,346

87%

$2,302

Utah

5,270

$11,239,802

4,561

87%

$2,464

Vermont

1,071

$1,506,900

931

87%

$1,619

Virginia

16,114

$31,066,922

13,647

85%

$2,276

Washington

16,278

$33,381,163

13,748

84%

$2,428

West Virginia

2,564

$3,724,322

2,215

86%

$1,681

Wisconsin

10,104

$15,577,749

8,493

84%

$1,834

Wyoming

1,051

$1,267,023

891

85%

$1,422

1Average amount paid is based on the total number of fraud complaints where amount paid was reported by consumers from the respective States.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 82 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 269 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

426

Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

483

Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,781

Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

476

Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

899

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,574

Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,750

Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

503

Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

669

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,062

Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

428

Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

630

Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,356

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

541

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

755

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,827

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area
AAAAAutuutllgbgaauunnutsstrianttcaa--S--OCRWapinitaceydthl,yeimkNrSvaoJ,pinlMrAldienL,eCgMtMrsoo-uEMpentoMrtalyorii,tipccaeGorinttotlAeaiSpt,a-dotSGnaltCiiAinStsatMtnMaiPctSeiauesttlttrearioAtocnipaprstoeltoeilaAcliitaAtraalenrnaAiSzSrtoetaaanttiiassttiivcca.allAAArrpreeaaaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28, 2930931996
1,412 418 775
18,864 1,218 549 1,568 448

Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,462

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,524

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,236

Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

447

Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

634

Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,900

Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

469

Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

435

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,535

Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

964

Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

687

Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area

483

Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

885

Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,618

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area

157

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

661

Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

739

Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

494

Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

271

Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,974

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

13,006

Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,739

Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

398

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

987

269.5 472.6 396.8 290.3 806.4 302.5 336.7 335.2 589.4 382.6 338.4 260.9 377.5 414.3 424.2 531.0 300.3 459.7 354.8 407.0 417.8 367.1 448.4 436.5 299.7 370.0 426.9 323.5 385.0 303.7 282.0 247.9 339.9 401.3 404.3 518.4 460.6 326.1 357.5 328.9 155.2 436.2 413.5 306.4 255.9 347.8 291.9 616.0 351.2 410.2

Rank
330 66 136 300 3 279 231 234 20 157 229 342 164 109 97 40 284 73 206 121 104 181 76 85 285 180 96 248 153 275 315 353 228 132 126 47 72 245 199 240 379 86 112 269 345 215 298 15 210 116

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 83 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 270 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,887

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

394

Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

410

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,859

Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

489

Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area

590

Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,248

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,059

Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

549

Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

769

Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

582

Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

612

Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,898

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,235

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

788

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,889

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

24,310

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

Coeur d'Alene, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area
CCCCoooolllluoluemrmgaebbdiioSaat,,SaMSptiCroOinnMg-MBse,ertryCtoraOopnpo,MolTiltiXeattanrnMocSpiSettoaettalrtidiottsiapstiniotncilcaSiatPltalaAnutAiresSertenatiacattaeilstAAicrraeilzaAorneaa

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,52,880481326
982 543 6,112 585 589 3,164 535 2,137

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,079

Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,394

Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area

870

Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,004

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

20,683

Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

720

Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

432

Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area

892

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

902

Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,116

Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

427

Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

233

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,056

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,948

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,465

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,786

Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

585

Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area

596

Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

792

Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

827

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,566

East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area

474

East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,001

320.6 101.6 407.5 251.3 342.8 286.4 304.6 360.4 220.2 549.3 268.7 200.3 314.7 393.9 414.1 380.3 255.7 408.6 277.7 408.3 496.0 289.1 444.8 306.5 528.1 343.0 303.6 373.6 370.5 587.5 241.5 344.5 535.7 403.4 527.3 239.1 371.4 285.5 213.2 414.0 454.5 274.2 241.4 423.2 403.8 288.8 778.1 552.6 428.8 604.2

Rank
251 380 120 350 221 311 273 192 369 35 331 377 254 140 110 159 346 118 320 119 55 303 78 268 42 220 276 172 179 23 359 218 39 128 43 362 177 312 372 111 74 328 360 98 127 304
4 33 95 17

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 84 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 271 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

384

247.7

El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

371

Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

449

Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

696

El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,461

Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

902

Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,428

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area

393

Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,014

Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

419

Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

350

Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,424

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,178

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

710

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,355

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

477

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

396

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gainesville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gainesville, Gettysburg, Glens Falls,

PNGAAYMMMieecttrrrooopppooollliiitttaaancnniStSSetttadaatttiiisissntttiiicccPaaalullAAAernrreeeataae

Arizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,12,370251286
1,008 1,536 3,051
369 1,200 1,112
662 381

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

314

Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

556

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,370

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,988

Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

884

Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,257

231.4 404.9 351.3 198.4 322.4 422.6 306.2 289.4 224.1 276.7 417.2 279.9 568.2 306.6 239.9 277.6 478.5 262.4 559.1 376.4 342.1 357.0 491.8 641.8 654.8 294.3 275.8 414.3 306.2 839.3 295.6 329.3

Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

655 2,245
825 1,336
624 830 1,901 405 3,739 354 1,393 515 812 939 612 2,496 465

395.1 372.9 362.0 518.6 551.5 567.9 361.8 357.0 314.5 262.7 387.1 300.8 495.6 364.4 443.0 274.3 229.2

Rank
355 365 125 209 378 249 101 270 302 368 323 106 318 29 267 361 321 61 338 32 168 223 201 59 12 10 293 325 108 271 2 292 239 138 174 188 46 34 30 189 202 255 337 150 282 56 186 80 327 366

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 85 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 272 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

12,989

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

729

Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,289

Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

452

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,321

Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

528

Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

337

Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

612

Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,085

Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

396

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,968

Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

587

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

438

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

735

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

693

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

959

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

514

Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area
KKKKKeiaiinlnnnlggenssesaeptnswoo-CnTirc,tie-ktNmBy-,RYrpMiilsceMtOho-Flel-a-otKBnrrodStrpi-HsPMotoloaieoslt,tacdrnToo, ,cNpTSWoiXt-talVeiAttMidAasnMteiiMcntSeraotetlPartpoAtruoiopsrlpeoteiitolancailatntialteanSAnAtSraSettraiatiszattitoisictsniatcilacaAalvlAr.eAraAerearapaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2203126
523

413

1,287

388

6,072

703

1,446

1,264

847

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,500

Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

366

La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

400

Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

716

Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

798

Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,112

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,224

Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,241

Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,729

Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,304

Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

218

Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

722

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,411

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

368

Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

414

Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area

680

Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

654

Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

432

Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,488

Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

319

Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area

814

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,990

Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

315

234.5 255.4 342.1 386.4 319.4 378.3 335.6 373.5 204.9 353.8 388.7 389.6 323.6 461.8 478.1 501.7 349.7 204.7 310.3 292.2 402.5 355.7 308.6 311.0 411.6 417.9 463.5 374.6 362.8 309.5 385.5 313.6 578.2 634.1 399.0 349.7 287.2 94.2 372.4 360.7 328.2 379.2 394.4 515.4 401.7 340.7 301.5 286.6 304.8 283.4

Rank
363 348 222 151 252 163 233 173 375 207 148 146 247 70 64 53 211 376 260 296 129 205 265 258 115 103 69 170 187 263 152 256 26 13 134 212 307 381 176 191 241 162 139 48 131 225 281 309 272 314

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 86 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 273 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

730

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

35,368

Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,401

Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

696

Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

384

Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,032

Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,179

Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,018

Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,847

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,932

Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area

393

Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

422

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

607

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,062

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,151

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

707

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

227

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area
MMMMMMioooionsbdnnsnierroleoosueatee,lop,,aA,o,MLClLMAiIsAM-TMMSMetMee.ttertPrerotootraproppuoopoolpl-olilBoitiltatlialatinonatnaonSSnSmtStcatSaiattintatittiasigetsstittttidsioiicstccntiaaicia,lnclalMaAlAAPlArNrAreueera-areaeWeanaIteMAetrroizpoonlitaanvS. tAatripstaiciaol,ANreoa.

15-15211

archived

on

April

281,62,260621486
467 3,997 9,833
534 1,149 1,915
453 937

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,559

Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

578

Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

538

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

673

Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

421

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

587

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,032

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,148

Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,063

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,209

New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

673

New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,031

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,228

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

47,045

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

831

Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,076

Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,497

Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

454

Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,730

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

260

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,511

Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,367

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,405

359.0 273.1 278.3 266.2 297.6 430.9 514.1 695.6 340.1 479.7 371.0 332.3 86.6 538.9 247.2 287.8 217.3 297.7 568.4 375.5 264.7 309.7 526.5 284.3 373.9 263.0 604.4 431.0 502.0 405.0 581.7 366.5 335.0 432.7 859.8 337.8 358.0 571.0 358.6 315.0 250.0 513.9 408.7 473.5 356.2 347.6 233.6 299.5 582.5 292.4

Rank
194 329 319 333 288 94 49
7 227 60 178 237 382 37 356 305 370 287 28 169 334 262 44 313 171 336 16 92 52 124 25 183 235 91
1 230 198 27 196 253 351 50 117 65 204 216 364 286 24 295

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 87 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 274 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,916

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

661

Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area

478

Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

474

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,583

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,922

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

679

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

413

Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area

729

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,841

Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

949

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

16,382

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

14,213

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

233

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

7,022

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

398

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,701

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Prescott, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
PPPPRrruuaooencvvbitnaioldoe-GeO,,noWCrcreOedIm-aMNM,, UFeeewLtTtrrooBMMppeoeoedlttlifrritootoaarppnndoo-SlSlFiittttaacaaaltntinliitsseRStStiidtictcavaaatetililinrssA,AttiiPRrccreaeIaua-lalMeAAnArreteeaaMAetrriozpoonliatanv.SAtartpisaticioa,l

ANroea.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,182,,610981806
728 2,256 1,423 4,320 1,981
465 1,139
845

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,914

Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

305

Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,431

Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

816

Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,047

Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

4,570

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

11,744

Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,361

Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

553

Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,510

Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,138

Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

545

Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

743

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

8,201

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

801

St. Cloud, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area

588

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

495

St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

378

St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area

9,605

Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,806

Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,131

Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area

580

Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

822

398.8 411.6 309.7 422.9 448.0 359.7 415.3 255.4 478.3 418.4 256.4 281.2 351.9 224.8 296.2 303.5 331.1 382.7 433.0 493.9 335.9 684.1 267.8 417.8 304.1 737.5 430.9 393.5 256.8 356.7 453.5 511.0 382.7 291.7 461.3 308.0 242.4 326.8 372.6 706.8 396.7 388.3 321.7 391.9 309.1 343.5 469.6 275.7 492.5 603.3

Rank
135 114 261 100 77 193 107 347 62 102 344 316 208 367 290 277 238 156 90 57 232 8 332 105 274
5 93 142 343 203 75 51 155 299 71 266 357 243 175 6 137 149 250 144 264 219 68 326 58 18

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 88 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 275 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,917

San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

263

San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,573

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

11,831

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

15,871

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,731

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,087

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,648

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,339

Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area

747

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,864

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,571

Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,106

Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,656

Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area

798

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

12,559

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

573

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area
SSSSSpoipporuaouirtkntxhaagnnFBfiebaee,ulnllWdrsdg,,-,AISMLSDMiCMsMheMeatretweortortapropkoopoalpoi,lotilIatilNantiatna-cnSMnSittSateSIattaitdtMsaitstitiesticnisttcaitrciaolPcalpAaluAolrAelAeriertanraeaetnaeaSAtartiizstoicnaal Avr.eaArpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,

2303106
516

1,010

675

300

536

1,386

1,102

1,818

431

Springfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,035

Springfield, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,391

Springfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

890

State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

462

Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

829

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area

424

Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,410

Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

373

Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,961

Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,096

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,617

Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

661

Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

407

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,003

Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,727

Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,004

Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area

1,118

Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area

494

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,285

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,618

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,791

Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area

327

Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

550

366.9 248.7 286.9 402.2 379.7 376.6 422.9 411.7 536.2 524.6 399.2 376.5 345.6 300.6 442.6 384.8 440.4 287.6 435.5 261.1 528.3 209.1 251.7 435.8 406.5 407.0 209.1 296.6 341.7 627.3 327.8 567.0 366.5 358.0 357.2 301.7 325.7 393.6 392.9 302.6 642.0 264.2 438.6 588.1 347.8 349.6 382.3 310.9 247.8 276.7

Rank
182 352 308 130 160 166 99 113 38 45 133 167 217 283 81 154 82 306 88 341 41 374 349 87 123 122 373 289 224 14 242 31 184 197 200 280 246 141 143 278 11 335 84 22 214 213 158 259 354 324

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 89 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 276 of 285

Appendix D1: Fraud and Other Consumer Complaints

by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1

January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

758 833 457 2,243 327 375 5,388 1,243 661

389.4 280.2 361.8 544.8 286.6 242.2 326.7 296.0 292.2

Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

600

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area

22,922

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

350

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

389

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

578

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

625

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

405

Wheeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

385

Whitewater, WI Micropolitan Statistical Area Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Wichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Willimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Wilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area
WWWWiioonnorsccsthetoesentrse,-tSreO,ra,MHleVmAMA,Mi-NcWreCoVtprMooMpleiotetalrtionrtoapSpncotoilaStilettitiatasdanttniisScintSatiacltaPtaAitlsiurstAeietciarcnaealatleAArAerearaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28,12,740181436
456 422 701 1,231 701 1,528 501 2,861

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

647

470.5 433.3 215.7 340.4 443.9 499.3 379.2 261.3 478.2 289.5 313.3 358.6 599.8 377.4 589.4 334.6 439.7 364.5 277.6

York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,626 1,725 1,072
492

390.6 293.9 662.5 262.3

Rank
147 317 190 36 310 358 244 291 297 67 89 371 226 79 54 161 340 63 301 257 195 19 165 21 236 83 185 322 145 294 9 339

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of fraud and other complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 90 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 277 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Abilene, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Adrian, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Albany-Lebanon, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Alexandria, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Allegan, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Altoona, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Amarillo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area

147 101 729 222 214 645 1,23 4 145 169 936 102 313 267

93.0 98.8 104.0 135.4 191.9 75.8 151.1 96.6 148.9 117.0 80.6 129.6 74.3

Anderson, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

130

Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

214

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

468

Anniston-Oxford, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Appleton, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Ashtabula, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area Athens-Clarke County, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area AAAAAAttuuuullgbsgaatuunnuinstrstaittn-caa-R-S--OCRoWapuiintcaenydhltd,yiemkNrRSavoJoip,nlMcrAldeiknL,e,CgMtTMroso-XuEMpencotMMtariylotrie,eiiptceadGtorrtntoolAiainpSpt,a-ootSGnPallCitiAutSitaasMtetnnMainctSSeiaetstettltrtaaroiAottcApiiapssrorelttoiiilazAccliitoaatarlalennnAAaaSSrrtevetaaaa.titAsistritcipcaaalliAoA,rreNeaao.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28131, 3472603016 83 215
7,50 3 437 215 549 92
1,84 9

99.6 120.2 136.0 120.5 79.6 85.4 80.8 115.9 146.0 160.9 170.9 104.9 76.0 122.2

Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Baltimore-Towson, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Bangor, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Barnstable Town, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area Baton Rouge, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Battle Creek, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Bay City, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Bellingham, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bend, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Billings, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,11 9 2,82 0
98 180 881 107 112 429 219 150 85 196 1,33 9

271.6 106.1 66.6 80.1 114.9 77.5 103.3 113.0 117.8 100.6 57.4 79.2 121.7

Bismarck, ND Metropolitan Statistical Area Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Bloomington-Normal, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Bluefield, WV-VA Micropolitan Statistical Area Boise City-Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Bowling Green, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Bremerton-Silverdale, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

52 126 168 158
68 422 4,01 5 378 89 225

51.4 83.2 94.0 98.0 64.2 74.3 90.1 133.9 78.5 93.5

Rank
259 234 218 107 27 324 76 241 78 167 303 121 329
232 151 105 148 307 287 302 170 87 63 45 213 322 141
8 209 346 306 175 321 221 179 164 229 361 313 142
372 296 254 237 351 327 267 108 316 258

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 91 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 278 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Brunswick, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Burlington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area Canton-Massillon, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Chambersburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area Champaign-Urbana, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Charleston, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

1007 1422 177
862 161 118 288 668 110 183 161 164 515

111.8 366.8 175.9 75.8 112.9 57.3 70.3 116.9 44.1 130.7 74.3 53.7 85.4

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,07 0

Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

183

Chattanooga, TN-GA Metropolitan Statistical Area

515

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Chico, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Clarksville, TN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area CCCCCooooolllelouuluemmrrgabbdedii'oSAaa,,tSlaeMSptniCroOeinn,Mg-IMBDse,ertCrMytoraOopenpot,MrolToilctipeXaittotanrenlMoiSdtpSateoaitntnaltriioSttsiPaptstiantoucitlcaiSeislatttnalaiAcntAteirasSerltAeatiAaacrtariizelsatoAicnraealaAv.reAarpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

12128,,261, 6672809016 269 134
2,21 0 117 221 626 139 732

130.8 96.2 103.7 128.1 124.1 78.9 111.9 122.4 104.5 89.0 115.0 104.5 89.1 104.0

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Columbus, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Concord, NH Micropolitan Statistical Area Corpus Christi, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Dalton, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Danville, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Daphne-Fairhope, AL Micropolitan Statistical Area Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Decatur, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Decatur, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

433 1,45 7
175 792 9,28 1 187 146 259 239 728 142 76 598

149.9 84.4 118.2 190.5 154.6 139.1 136.3 153.1 63.3 86.8 95.0 69.5 120.4

Denver-Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Dothan, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Dunn, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area East Liverpool-Salem, OH Micropolitan Statistical Area East Stroudsburg, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area

3,09 9 321
5,33 9 260 163 181 250 774 93 218

128.7 60.1 119.5 188.1 110.4 66.0 235.2 166.7 84.1 131.6

Rank
185 1 37 325 180 362 338 168 379 116 328 369 288
115 242 220 128 135 315 184 140 215 275 174 216 273 217
77 289 163 29 69 101 104 72 354 284 248 339 149
124 359 155 31 188 349 12 51 290 113

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 92 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 279 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Eau Claire, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Elizabethtown, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Erie, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Eugene-Springfield, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area Evansville, IN-KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Farmington, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

63 313 1261 143 237 200 321 104 206 71 129 521 312

40.6 195.3 171.3 129.0 119.6 71.5 95.0 81.0 58.8 38.0 102.0 152.6 74.1

Flagstaff, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

257

Flint, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

449

Florence, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

278

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Smith, AR-OK Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area

Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gadsden, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

Gainesville, Gainesville, Gettysburg, Glens Falls,

PNGFALYAMMMMieceetrtrtrrooooppppooooclllliiitiittattaeaanndnnSSSSinttttaaaattPtitiiissssuttttiieicicccaanaalltlleAAAArrArreeeeaaraaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28213, 2302950016 264 391
1,67 6 164 325 400 156 71

205.7 101.6 139.8 94.6 108.6 79.3 146.4 95.8 187.9 158.7 133.2 230.9 154.3 54.8

Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Junction, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Green Bay, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Greensboro-High Point, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Greenville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Greenville, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Hammond, LA Micropolitan Statistical Area Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

194 170.4

162 120.7

630

81.4

584 246.6

196

65.6

787 114.8

259 156.2

660 109.6

276 121.1

254

98.6

227 200.6

462 316.1

498

94.8

Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Hattiesburg, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Hilo, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC Micropolitan Statistical Area Holland-Grand Haven, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Homosassa Springs, FL Micropolitan Statistical Area Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

88 1,30 5
168 429
79 229 214 159 518 190

77.6 109.8 124.7 119.2 46.1 139.8 83.1 115.1 56.9 93.6

Rank
380 25 43 123 154 336 247 301 360 382 224 74 331
18 225 98 251 198 312 82 245 32 64 111 13 71 366
46 147 300 11 350 176 67 194 144 235 20 5 250
320 193 133 156 378 99 297 173 363 256

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 93 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 280 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Idaho Falls, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area Indianapolis-Carmel, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Ithaca, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Jackson, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Jacksonville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

7,38 2 205 283 124
1,67 6 134 64 117 627 136
1,63 8 164 92

133.3 71.8 75.1 106.0 100.6 96.0 63.7 71.4 118.4 121.5 128.2 108.8 68.0

Janesville, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

149

Jefferson City, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area

198

Johnson City, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area

231

Johnstown, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Joplin, MO Metropolitan Statistical Area Kahului-Wailuku, HI Micropolitan Statistical Area Kalamazoo-Portage, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area KKKKKKaaeiiinnlnnnlggenkssesaeaptsnowko-CneTirce,tie--tkNyBmB-,RYrrpiMailscdMetoOhl-eFell-ay-toKBrn,roSdIrtpLi-HsPMotMoolaiescoltet,acidrttTnoo,re,opNTSdWpot-XaoliVnitAltiMiAastPatnMeiMnuctSeraeSotetlartntpAoarttoiotpserilptoseiitotAalciailcatnriaaltizalnSAnoAtSranSerttaieaatsataittvsiicts.iatciAlcaAralplAraeAraieroea,aNo.

15-15211

archived

on

April

2811, 2952750016 71 336 132
1,77 3 294 447 324 214

93.6 136.6 120.9 86.4 83.8 89.0 50.2 105.1 121.0 90.1 130.1 127.2 107.1 117.1

Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Kokomo, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area La Crosse, WI-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lafayette, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lake Charles, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area Lakeland, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Lancaster, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lansing-East Lansing, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Laredo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Las Cruces, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area

495 129
63 218 326 222 332 928 546 314 633 395 2,51 9

74.2 127.9 48.7 117.4 128.1 115.4 172.0 165.2 110.4 69.2 273.5 203.7 141.7

Lawrence, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Lawton, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Statistical Area Lebanon, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Lincoln, NE Metropolitan Statistical Area Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area Logan, UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area

102

91.0

110 100.8

134

77.7

184 145.0

103

95.8

366

83.8

65

61.4

157

55.3

772 118.3

81

72.9

Rank
110 335 326 210 228 244 353 337 161 143 126 197 345
257 103 146 285 293 274 373 212 145 268 119 130 201 166
330 129 376 165 127 171 41 55 189 340
7 19 95
266 227 319 89 246 294 356 365 162 334

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 94 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 281 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Longview, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Lumberton, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Madera, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Madison, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area Manhattan, KS Micropolitan Statistical Area Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

296 21,15 8
1092 251 170 239 453 511 347 433 89 102
2,25 9

145.5 163.4 89.3 96.0 131.8 99.8 197.5 349.2 63.9 107.5 84.0 80.3 322.4

Medford, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area

172

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,86 5

Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

559

Meridian, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area MMMMMMMooiiioolnsnndbwsnroeriaeoolsueuaetel,okp,a,A,eoL,MCelLMAi-IsAW-MTMMSMateMee.uttetrPkrerotooertapropspuoohpoolp-laloBliioit-lttaWillaaitoncnntaoaeinStnSsSmettSttadaSiaAtnttattiiagisltsnslittttitsiiosiisctPccn,itacaai,WulcllaMeaAlAAIlnArNrAMreteere-areaaWeeatAarIorMpizooelitntraoanpvoS.ltiaAtatirnsptSaictiaaolt,iAsNtriceoaa.l1A5r-e1a5211

archived

on

April

1208,191, 2152994016 162
1,32 5 2,66 3
95 442 936 204 303

87.3 146.3 227.6 123.5 199.8 139.4 130.2 87.7 83.9 93.7 109.4 182.8 118.5 195.4

Montgomery, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Morgantown, WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Morristown, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Muncie, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Naples-Marco Island, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area New Bern, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

824 102 146 187
95 116 255 469 411 1,37 1 185 1099 1479

227.8 88.6 109.9 161.6 82.7 66.2 106.9 351.3 130.6 94.2 157.0 130.0 144.3

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Niles-Benton Harbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Norwich-New London, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area Ocala, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Odessa, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area Ogdensburg-Massena, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Olympia, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area

24,64 3 261 280 422 173 457 61
1,24 5 335 651

131.0 161.4 106.3 133.5 135.7 91.8 54.8 106.2 142.8 79.1

Rank
88 57 271 243 112 231 22 3 352 199 291 305 4
282 84 15 137 21 100 118 280 292 255 195 34 160 24
14 279 191 59 298 348 202 2 117 252 66 120 91
114 60 205 109 106 264 367 207 93 314

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 95 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 282 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Oshkosh-Neenah, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Ottawa-Streator, IL Micropolitan Statistical Area Owensboro, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Pascagoula, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Peoria, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,30 5 118 137 103
1,36 9 548 184 87 252 469 225
7,00 8 7,10 1

166.5 73.5 88.8 91.9 171.2 102.6 112.5 53.8 165.3 106.6 60.8 120.3 175.8

Pine Bluff, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

154

Pittsburgh, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

1,63 0

Pittsfield, MA Metropolitan Statistical Area

117

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metropolitan Statistical Area Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Pottsville, PA Micropolitan Statistical Area PPPPPRProruruaooeuencsvvbitgcnaoilhdooe-Gket,,OtenWo,CrecerApOedmIZs-aMiNM,,eMUFe-eeNwLtetTrretoorMBwMpopeobpeoedluotltirfirrltootoiagatprpnhandcoo-n-iSMlStlFiiSettttaaaaiatddtlantnilidtssiRiSntlSstieititcctatviPaaocatetliaulwirsslAA,tentiAiRrc,nrceearaNItaeal-elMYaAAAArMrereiazaMeotrenotrpaoopvloi.tlaAintarSpntaaSittoias,ttiiNsctaiocl.aAl1rA5ea-r1ea5211

archived

on

April

218,639, 7142251016 219 687 354
1,42 9 421 215 293 306

148.6 68.8 89.2 171.4 66.4 89.6 148.6 102.3 170.2 88.6 88.8 140.6 189.7 156.0

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Rapid City, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area Reading, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Redding, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Reno-Sparks, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Roanoke, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Rockford, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area Rocky Mount, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Roseburg, OR Micropolitan Statistical Area

1142 66
619 179 586 1162 7,00 8 299 124 824 406 236 102

114.8 55.6 154.3 99.5 146.3 97.3 174.1 101.3 69.1 79.6 116.6 161.3 97.0

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Salem, OR Metropolitan Statistical Area Salinas, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, MD Metropolitan Statistical Area Salisbury, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area San Angelo, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Antonio, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,01 9 238 461 661 146 286 961 84
2,76 2 4,08 9

146.0 115.4 119.9 161.1 124.0 209.9 90.0 79.4 142.2 139.0

Rank
53 332 277 263 44 222 183 368 54 204 357 150 38
79 344 272 42 347 270 80 223 47 278 276 97 30 68
177 364 70 233 85 239 39 226 341 308 169 61 240
86 172 153 62 136 17 269 310 94 102

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 96 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 283 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Fe, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Savannah, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Seaford, DE Micropolitan Statistical Area Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,11 8 2,64 3
476 606 540 224 589 758 384 478 189 3,38 5 224

146.4 147.9 185.2 151.4 216.3 157.3 126.2 111.0 120.0 86.8 104.8 103.7 172.2

Sheboygan, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

45

Sherman-Denison, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

152

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area

388

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Micropolitan Statistical Area

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

Sioux Falls, SD Metropolitan Statistical Area

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spartanburg, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area

Spokane, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Springfield, IL Metropolitan Statistical Area SSSSptpp.rrrCiiinnnlgggofffuiiieedelll,dddM,,, MOMNHOAMMMMeteeertottrrrpooooppplocooiltilliatiitettnaaadnnnStSiSSanttttaiaaPstttitiisusistcttieiiacccnlaaaAtllleAArAeArrraeeeraaaizona

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

28121, 0102345016 530 334 420 129 729 328 205 126

39.2 128.3 100.3 167.5 73.2 48.4 166.7 123.2 94.0 62.6 106.2 80.6 144.5 68.9

St. George, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area St. Joseph, MO-KS Metropolitan Statistical Area St. Louis, MO-IL Metropolitan Statistical Area State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Statesville-Mooresville, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Staunton-Waynesboro, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Sumter, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Syracuse, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Terre Haute, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

99 116 2,40 4
97 246
92 1,31 8
171 516 367 3,04 3 137 167

78.4 94.8 86.0 68.8 168.3 79.5 195.8 163.7 79.4 109.1 112.8 81.4 124.2

Thomasville-Lexington, NC Micropolitan Statistical Area Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Topeka, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Torrington, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area Traverse City, MI Micropolitan Statistical Area Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area Tupelo, MS Micropolitan Statistical Area Tuscaloosa, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area

437 641 296 336
71 404 1,59 6 819 145 224

279.7 98.1 129.3 176.7 50.0 109.9 168.6 91.2 109.9 112.7

Rank
83 81 33 75 16 65 131 186 152 283 214 219 40
381 125 230 50 333 377 52 139 253 355 206 304 90 342
317 249 286 343 49 309 23 56 311 196 181 299 134
6 236 122 36 374 190 48 265 192 182

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 97 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 284 of 285

Appendix D2: Identity Theft Consumer Complaints by Largest Metropolitan Areas (in alphabetical order)1
January 1 – December 31, 2008

Complaints

Per 100,000

Metropolitan Area

Complaints Population

Tyler, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Utica-Rome, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area Valdosta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Victoria, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Waco, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area Warner Robins, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Micropolitan Statistical Area

221 249 159 1078 185 164 1,51 9 813 176 195 6,52 4 81 69

113.5 83.8 125.9 261.9 162.2 105.9 92.1 193.6 77.8 152.9 123.3 49.9 60.4

Wausau, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area

68

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area

95

Wenatchee, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

127

W W W W W W W W W W W

heeling, WV-OH Metropolitan Statistical Area hitewater, WI Micropolitan Statistical Area ichita Falls, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area ichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area illiamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area illimantic, CT Micropolitan Statistical Area ilmington, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area oioinnrosccsthetoesenrtse-,tSreO,ra,HMleVmAMA,iM-NcWreCoVtprMooMpleiotetcalrtiionrttoapeSpnodtolaSilittintaitasanttPniisScutSatiaelcttaanAitslitrtseAietciarAacealarlAizAroerneaaa

v.

Arpaio,

No.

15-15211

archived

on

April

2811, 5722690016 550 115 207 348 132 645 105 935

52.2 75.9 118.9 53.6 118.8 107.2 92.9 97.7 177.1 106.7 111.0 141.3 92.1 119.1

Yakima, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area York-Hanover, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area

334 143.3

442 106.2

515

87.7

430 265.8

359 191.4

Rank
178 295 132 10 58 211 262 26 318 73 138 375 358
371 323 158 370 159 200 260 238 35 203 187 96 261 157
92 208 281
9 28

1This chart illustrates Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of one hundred thousand or more. Ranking is based on the number of identity theft complaints per 100,000 inhabitants for each Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Areas presented here are those defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2005 and the population estimates are based on the 2006 U.S. Census table CBSA-EST2006-01.

Federal Trade Commission

Page 98 of 98

Released February 26, 2009

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-2, Page 285 of 285
cited in Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. 15-15211 archived on April 28, 2016
Federal Trade Commission
For the Consumer ftc.gov

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-3, Page 1 of 5

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Office of the Clerk 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings

Judgment •

This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case. Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached decision because all of the dates described below run from that date, not from the date you receive this notice.

Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2) • The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.

Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1) Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)

(1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing): • A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist: ► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision; ► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or ► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not addressed in the opinion. • Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.

B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc) • A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

1

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-3, Page 2 of 5
► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or ► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing: • A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate. • See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the due date). • An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel • A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)) • The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text. • The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being challenged. • An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length limitations as the petition. • If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

2

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-3, Page 3 of 5
• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms.
• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise.
Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1) • The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. • See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms.
Attorneys Fees • Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees applications. • All relevant forms are available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms or by telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari • Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at www.supremecourt.gov
Counsel Listing in Published Opinions • Please check counsel listing on the attached decision. • If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in writing within 10 days to: ► Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526; St. Paul, MN 551640526 (Attn: Jean Green, Senior Publications Coordinator); ► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF system by using “File Correspondence to Court,” or if you are an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the Court one copy of the letter.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 08/2013

3

Case: 15-15211, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-3, Page 4 of 5 Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BILL OF COSTS
This form is available as a fillable version at: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/forms/Form%2010%20-%20Bill%20of%20Costs.pdf.
Note: If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs.

v.

9th Cir. No.

The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against:

Cost Taxable under FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 9th Cir. R. 39-1
Excerpt of Record Opening Brief Answering Brief Reply Brief Other**

REQUESTED (Each Column Must Be Completed)

No. of Docs.

Pages per Cost per

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

TOTAL: $

ALLOWED (To Be Completed by the Clerk)

No. of Pages per Cost per

Docs.

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

TOTAL: $

* Costs per page: May not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1.
** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be considered.

Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.

Continue to next page

Form 10. Bill of CoCstass-eC: 1on5t-i1n5u2ed11, 05/02/2016, ID: 9959412, DktEntry: 121-3, Page 5 of 5

I,

, swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed

were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed.

Signature ("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically) Date
Name of Counsel:

Attorney for:

(To Be Completed by the Clerk) Date

Costs are taxed in the amount of $ Clerk of Court By:

, Deputy Clerk

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

This case involves the constitutionality of two Arizona statutes that criminalize the

16 act of identity theft when done with the intent to obtain or continue employment, and a 17 general Arizona statute that makes it a crime to commit forgery. Plaintiffs argue that 18 these three statutes are preempted when applied to unauthorized aliens who commit fraud

19 in the federal employment verification process or to show authorization to work under 20 federal immigration law. Plaintiffs also claim that the two identity theft statutes were 21 enacted with the purpose of discriminating against unauthorized aliens and are facially

22 invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek

23 declaratory and injunctive relief.

24

The Parties have filed motions for summary judgment, and the Court heard oral

25 arguments on October 13, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in 26 part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the preemption claim, grant in part 27 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the preemption claim, and grant 28 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the equal protection claim.

1 I. Background.

2

For purposes of this order, the Court will refer to those who are in the United

3 States without legal authorization as “unauthorized aliens.” Plaintiffs consist of two

4 unauthorized aliens who have been convicted of identity theft felonies in Arizona for

5 using false names to obtain employment; Puente, an organization formed to protect and

6 promote the interests of unauthorized aliens and their families; and several residents of

7 Maricopa County who object to the use of their tax dollars to prosecute unauthorized

8 aliens for identity theft or forgery in the employment context. Defendants are the State of

9 Arizona, Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, and Maricopa

10 County Attorney Bill Montgomery.

11

The Court will begin by describing relevant federal laws and regulations on the

12 employment of unauthorized aliens, and then will describe the Arizona laws challenged

13 by Plaintiffs and the prior proceedings in this case.

14

A. Federal Regulation of Unauthorized Alien Employment.

15

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”).

16 Pub. L. No. 99-603 (S. 1200). Among other provisions, the IRCA prohibited the

17 employment of unauthorized aliens and created a national system for verifying whether

18 prospective employees were authorized to work in this Country. Id. § 101. The new

19 system required employers to verify the identity and work authorization of persons they

20 intend to hire. Id. Congress instructed the Attorney General to create a form on which an

21 employer would attest, under penalty of perjury, that it had verified that an employee was

22 authorized to work. Id. The prospective employee was also required to swear that he or

23 she is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully authorized to obtain employment in the

24 United States. Id.

25

Following the passage of the IRCA, the Attorney General enacted regulations to

26 implement the employment verification system. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2. These regulations

27 create the Form I-9 to be used in the verification process. Section 1 of the Form I-9

28 requires the employee to provide his or her name, address, date of birth, and social

- 2 -

1 security number, and to swear under penalty of perjury that he or she is a citizen or

2 national of the United States, a lawful permanent resident alien, or an alien authorized to

3 work in the United States. In section 2, the employer identifies documents reviewed by

4 the employer to verify the employee’s identity and work authorization. The regulations

5 identify specific documents, referred to as “List A” documents, that can be used to show

6 both identity and authorization to work, such as U.S. passports, permanent resident alien

7 cards, or federal employment authorization documents. “List B” documents can be used

8 to show identity, and include items such as driver’s licenses or state, federal, or school ID

9 cards. “List C” documents can be used to show employment authorization, and include

10 social security cards and other specific federally- or tribally-issued documents. 8 C.F.R.

11 § 274a.2(b)(1)(v). A prospective employee must show the employer either a List A

12 document or a combination of List B and List C documents.

13

After the employer verifies the employee’s identity and authorization to work and

14 the Form I-9 is completed, the employer is required to maintain the form and any copies

15 it made of documents provided by the employee. The Form I-9 is not submitted to the

16 government. The intent is for employees to prove their identity and authorization to

17 work, and for employers to confirm these facts and then retain a copy of the Form I-9 as 18 proof the process was completed.1

19

The IRCA established criminal penalties for employers who fail to follow the

20 Form I-9 process. Pub. L. No. 99–603 (S 1200) § 101 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f)).

21 It also imposed criminal penalties on persons who knowingly forge, counterfeit, or alter

22 any of the documents prescribed for proof of identity or employment authorization. Id.

23 1 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 required the
24 Attorney General to provide for the operation of three pilot programs related to the
25 federal employment verification system. Pub. L. No. 104–208 (HR 3610), §§ 401–405. One of these programs, originally titled the Basic Pilot Program but now referred to as
26 the E-Verify System, is still in operation today. The E-Verify System is an alternative to
27 the Form I-9 process and is an internet-based program through which an employer can verify the work authorization of a prospective employee. Use of the system is voluntary.
28 Pub. L. No. 104–208 (HR 3610), § 402. The E-Verify system is not at issue in this case.

- 3 -

1 § 103 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1546). The IRCA also imposed criminal penalties on

2 persons who knowingly use a false identification document to satisfy any requirement of

3 the I-9 process. Id.

4

Four years after the enactment of the IRCA, Congress passed the Immigration Act

5 of 1990. Pub. L. 101-649. This statute added a range of civil penalties for fraud

6 committed by employees in the Form I-9 process. Id (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324c).

7 Congress has also enacted various immigration penalties for fraud committed to satisfy

8 the federal employment verification system. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(c), 1227(a)(3),

9 1255(c). These criminal, civil, and immigration provisions will be discussed in greater

10 detail below.

11

B. Arizona Laws.

12

This case concerns three Arizona laws: two identity theft statutes passed in 1996

13 and 2005, and then amended in 2007 and 2008 to apply specifically to the use of false

14 identities to obtain employment, and a general forgery statute passed in 1977. As the

15 nature, history, and application of these laws are important to the issues addressed below,

16 the Court will describe them in some detail.

17

In July 1996, Arizona became the first state in the country to pass legislation

18 making identity theft a felony. S. Rep. No. 105-274, at 6 (1998). This statute, now

19 codified at A.R.S. § 13-2008, made it a crime to “knowingly take[] the name, birth date

20 or social security number of another person, without the consent of that person, with the

21 intent to obtain or use the other person’s identity for any unlawful purpose or to cause

22 financial loss to the other person.” 1996 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 205 (H.B. 2090) (West).

23 The statute has been amended several times to expand the definition of identity theft.

24 See, e.g., 2000 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 189 (H.B. 2428) (West) (broadening the statute to

25 cover “any personal identifying information” of another person).

26

In 2005, Arizona passed legislation creating a new crime of aggravated identity

27 theft. 2005 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 190 (S.B. 1058) (West). This statute, codified at

28 A.R.S. § 13-2009, designated identity theft as aggravated if it causes another to suffer an

- 4 -

1 economic loss of $1,000 or more, or if it involves stealing the identities of three or more

2 persons.

3

Plaintiffs’ claims focus on later amendments to § 13-2008 and § 13-2009 that

4 added specific language covering identity theft committed to obtain or continue

5 employment. The first amendment was passed in 2007 as part of H.B. 2779, known as

6 the “Legal Arizona Workers Act.” 2007 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 279 (H.B. 2779) (West).

7 H.B. 2779 created a new statute – A.R.S. § 13-212 – which prohibits employers from

8 hiring unauthorized aliens and threatens the suspension of their business licenses if they 9 fail to comply.2 H.B. 2779 also amended the aggravated identity theft statute that had

10 been passed in 2005. Under the amended statute, a person commits aggravated identity

11 theft by knowingly taking the identity of “[a]nother person, including a real or fictitious

12 person, with the intent to obtain employment.” A.R.S. § 13-2009(a)(3).

13

In 2008, Arizona passed H.B. 2745, titled “Employment of Unauthorized Aliens.”

14 2008 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 152 (H.B. 2745) (West). The bill amended and created

15 several statutes relating to the employment of unauthorized aliens. The bill also amended

16 § 13-2008(A) – originally passed in 1996 – to make clear that identity theft is a crime

17 when committed “with the intent to obtain or continue employment.” Id.

18

Throughout the remainder of this order, the Court will refer to the 2007 and 2008

19 amendments – which are the legislative acts specifically challenged by Plaintiffs – simply

20 as “the identity theft statutes.”

21

This Court and the Ninth Circuit have recognized in previous rulings in this case

22 that the 2007-2008 legislative history of the identity theft statutes reflects “an intent on

23 the part of Arizona legislators to prevent unauthorized aliens from coming to and

24 remaining in the state.” Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 821 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016);

25 Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833, 855 (D. Ariz. 2015). Plaintiffs identify

26 numerous statements by Arizona lawmakers expressing an intent to target unauthorized

27 aliens and affect immigration with both bills. Doc. 621 at 4-8; Doc. 538 at 17-18; Doc.

28 2 The Supreme Court found this statute to be constitutional in Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011).

- 5 -

1 575 at 16-21. For example, one of H.B. 2779’s sponsors, Representative Barnes, stated

2 that the bill was “meant to address the illegal immigration problem.” Doc. 575 at 16.

3 Senator Pearce, another sponsor of both bills, stated during a hearing on H.B. 2779 that

4 Arizona needed to do more to stop illegal immigration and that “attrition starts through

5 enforcement.” Doc. 621 at 5. Representatives Burns and O’Halloran expressed support

6 for the bills because they would take a tough stance on immigration and ensure that

7 unauthorized aliens would not become citizens. Doc. 575 at 18. When signing H.B.

8 2779 into law, Governor Napolitano noted that a “state like Arizona [has] no choice but

9 to take strong action to discourage the further flow of illegal immigration through our

10 borders.” 2007 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 279 (H.B. 2779) (West). In addition, H.B. 2779

11 and H.B. 2745 were among dozens of Arizona bills introduced during the same time

12 period which focused on unauthorized aliens. Doc. 575 at 19-20.

13

Defendants do not offer any contrary legislative history, but instead argue that the

14 statements cited by Plaintiffs are immaterial to their claims (Doc. 573 at 6-9), and that

15 “state legislative intent is irrelevant to the issue of preemption.” Doc. 510 at 16.

16 Defendants also argue that because H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 contain multiple provisions,

17 the legislative history cited by Plaintiffs cannot be linked specifically to the identity theft

18 statutes. Doc. 604 at 11. The Court has already rejected this argument, finding that the

19 2007 and 2008 amendments were intended – at least in part – to target unauthorized

20 aliens and influence illegal immigration. Puente, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 856-57.

21

In addition to challenging the identity theft statutes, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint

22 includes a preemption challenge to the general forgery statute, A.R.S. § 13-2002, as

23 applied to unauthorized aliens seeking employment. Doc. 191. This statute was

24 originally enacted in 1977, and provides that a person “commits forgery if, with intent to

25 defraud,” the person “[o]ffers or presents, whether accepted or not, a forged instrument or

26 one that contains false information.” A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3). This statute does not

27 specifically mention employment, but Defendants do not dispute that it has been applied

28 to unauthorized aliens who commit forgery in the employment context. Doc. 534 at 19.

- 6 -

1

C. History of This Case.

2

On January 5, 2015, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the identity

3 theft statutes – § 13-2009(A)(3) and the portion of § 13-2008(A) that addresses actions

4 committed with the intent to obtain or continue employment – finding that Plaintiffs were

5 likely to prevail on their claim that these provisions are facially preempted under the

6 Supremacy Clause. Puente, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 842. The Court relied heavily on the

7 legislative history of these provisions, finding “a primary purpose and effect . . . to

8 impose criminal penalties on unauthorized aliens” and “regulate unauthorized aliens who

9 seek employment.” Id. at 855. Because Congress has comprehensively regulated the

10 field of unauthorized alien employment, the Court concluded that the statutes were likely

11 invalid under both field and conflict preemption. Id. at 856-58.

12

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Court’s characterization of the

13 purpose of the identity theft statutes, but concluded that Plaintiffs’ facial preemption

14 challenge would fail on the merits because the statutes could also be applied to citizens or

15 lawful resident aliens and therefore could be enforced “in ways that do not implicate

16 federal immigration priorities.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1108. The Court of Appeals

17 explained:

18

[T]he identity theft laws are textually neutral – that is, they apply to

19

unauthorized aliens, authorized aliens, and U.S. citizens alike. . . . The key

point is this: one could not tell that the identity theft laws undermine federal

20

immigration policy by looking at the text itself. Only when studying certain

21

applications of the laws do immigration conflicts arise.

22 Id. at 1105. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for consideration

23 of Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge. Id. at 1110.

24

The Ninth Circuit also held that a presumption against preemption applies in this

25 case because the challenged identity theft laws “regulate for the health and safety of the

26 people of Arizona.” Id. at 1104. “Therefore, only if Congress’s intent to preempt the

27 challenged state statute is ‘clear and manifest’ may we deem the statute preempted.” Id.

28 More will be said about this presumption below.

- 7 -

1

D. Current Procedural Setting.

2

The parties have completed discovery and filed cross motions for summary

3 judgment on Plaintiffs’ as-applied preemption claim. Defendants have also moved for

4 summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, and Defendant Maricopa

5 County seeks summary judgment on its liability for the conduct of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio

6 and County Attorney Bill Montgomery. Docs. 510, 511, 525, 534. After setting forth the

7 relevant legal standard for summary judgment, the Court will address preemption, equal

8 protection, and the County’s liability.

9 II. Legal Standard.

10

A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing

11 the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record]

12 which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex

13 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the

14 evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is

15 no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

16 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is also appropriate against a

17 party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element

18 essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

19 trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

20 III. Preemption.

21

A. Basic Preemption Principles.

22

“The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the

23 supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything

24 in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’” Arizona

25 United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Under

26 this clause, “Congress has the power to preempt state law.” Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign

27 Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372, (2000). In determining whether Congress has in fact

28 preempted a state law, “‘the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.’” Wyeth v.

- 8 -

1 Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485,

2 (1996)).

3

The preemption doctrine consists of three well-recognized classes: express, field,

4 and conflict preemption. Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2500-01. Express preemption occurs

5 when Congress “withdraw[s] specified powers from the States by enacting a statute

6 containing an express preemption provision.” Id. (citing Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1974-75).

7 Field preemption precludes states “from regulating conduct in a field that Congress,

8 acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive

9 governance.” Id. at 2501 (citing Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88,

10 115 (1992)). Conflict preemption occurs “where ‘compliance with both federal and state

11 regulations is a physical impossibility,’ Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul,

12 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963), and in those instances where the challenged state law

13 ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

14 objectives of Congress,’ Hines [v. Davidowitz ], 312 U.S. [52,] 67, (1941).” Id.

15

As noted by the Ninth Circuit in this case, the Court begins with a presumption

16 that application of the identity theft and forgery statutes to unauthorized aliens is not

17 preempted. Puente, 821 F.3d at 1104. The Supreme Court has long held that “courts

18 should assume that ‘the historic police powers of the States’ are not superseded ‘unless

19 that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Arizona v. United States, 132

20 S.Ct. at 2501 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)); see

21 also Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565.

22

This case clearly implicates historic police powers. As already noted, § 13-2008

23 was the first identity theft statute passed by a state in the United States. More than a

24 decade later, “[b]etween 2006 and 2008, Arizona had the highest per-capita identity theft

25 rates in the nation, and one third of all identity theft complaints in the state involved

26 employment-related fraud.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1002. Defendants assert, without

27 contradiction from Plaintiffs, that some 860,000 identity thefts and 270,000 cases of

28 personal information theft occur annually in Arizona. Doc. 584, ¶ 6. Defendants’ expert,

- 9 -

1 Dr. Cohen, found that Arizona residents are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of

2 identity theft than average Americans, and that Arizona residents incur between $2.8 and

3 $5.1 billion in annual costs from identity theft. Id., ¶ 13.

4

Protecting residents against fraud, including fraud committed in the employment

5 context, plainly falls within the historic police powers of the State. To overcome the

6 resulting presumption against preemption, therefore, Plaintiffs must show that

7 “Congress’s intent to preempt the challenged state statutes is ‘clear and manifest.’”

8 Puente, 821 F.3d at 1104. In addition, as the Supreme Court has said, laws within the

9 historic police powers of the states “must do ‘major damage’ to ‘clear and substantial’

10 federal interests before the Supremacy Clause will demand that [they] be overridden[.]”

11 Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943, 1950 (2013) (quoting Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439

12 U.S. 572, 58 (1979)).

13

B. As-Applied Preemption.

14

Plaintiffs assert that Congress intended to preempt Arizona from applying its

15 identity theft and forgery statutes to unauthorized aliens who commit fraud in obtaining

16 employment. Plaintiffs do not claim that the laws have been applied unjustly to innocent

17 unauthorized aliens. Rather, they argue that aliens who actually steal the identity of

18 another to obtain employment cannot be prosecuted under the Arizona laws.

19

As the Ninth Circuit has emphasized, factual findings are very important in as-

20 applied preemption analysis. Puente, 821 F.3d at 1105. If the as-applied challenge

21 succeeds, the Arizona identity theft statutes will not be found invalid in their entirety, but

22 only as applied to employment-related fraud committed by unauthorized aliens.

23

The Supreme Court has explained that in “assessing the impact of a state law on

24 the federal scheme, we have refused to rely solely on the legislature’s professed purpose

25 and have looked as well to the effects of the law.” Gade, 505 U.S. at 105. The Ninth

26 Circuit also noted that Arizona’s purpose behind the challenged statutes is relevant but

27 not sufficient to establish preemption. Puente, 821 F.3d at 1106 n.8. Citing Gade and

28 similar cases, Defendants suggest that the Court’s as-applied analysis must focus on the

- 10 -

1 practical effect of the statutes’ application. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the court

2 must instead “determine whether a state or local policy poses an obstacle to the

3 accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress . . . [by]

4 evaluat[ing] not only its formal terms, but practical result.” Doc. 606 at 16 (emphasis

5 added). The Court sees no meaningful distinction between the “practical effect” and

6 “practical result” of the statutes’ application. By either name, the Court must determine

7 whether the challenged application conflicts with a federal scheme enacted by Congress

8 or intrudes on a field fully occupied by Congress. The touchstone remains the intent of

9 Congress, but with the presumption against preemption firmly in mind.

10

C. Relevant Facts.

11

1. Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

12

Between 2005 and 2015, a high majority of those prosecuted by the Maricopa

13 County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) under the Arizona identity theft and forgery laws

14 were unauthorized aliens. Doc. 621-21 at 11; Doc. 538 at 27. During this period, MCAO

15 filed employment-related identity theft or forgery charges against 1,390 persons. Of

16 these, 90% were designated as unauthorized aliens, 3% were designated as not

17 unauthorized aliens, and 7% had unknown alien status. Doc. 584-1, ¶ 122. Both sides

18 agree, however, that the evidence does not show that this rate of prosecution is out of

19 proportion to the rate at which unauthorized aliens commit identity theft or forgery in the

20 employment context. Doc. 589 at 54. Rather, because federal law prohibits their

21 employment, both sides find it obvious that unauthorized aliens working in the United

22 States use false identifications to obtain employment. Doc. 538 at 20; Doc. 573 at 17;

23 Doc. 606 at 17 n.12.

24

Between 2005 and 2015, approximately 23 different law enforcement agencies in

25 Maricopa County submitted identity theft cases to MCAO for prosecution. Doc. 534 at

26 18. Of the 1,353 cases for which charging documents were available, approximately 90

27 percent relied on documents other than the Form I-9. Id. at 24. Thus, it appears that

28 about 10 percent of MCAO prosecutions for identity theft or forgery involved charges

- 11 -

1 based at least in part on the Form I-9. Doc. 589 at 48. Apparently because he realized

2 that the IRCA includes a ban on state use of such documents (as discussed below),

3 Defendant Montgomery formally revised the MCAO’s written policy on September 17,

4 2014, to prohibit reliance on the Form I-9 as evidence in trial or for charging purposes.

5 Id., ¶ 74; Doc. 538 at 29. Other documents relied on by MCAO in identity theft and

6 forgery cases include false federal tax withholding forms (W-4), state tax withholding

7 forms (A-4), job applications, social security cards, state identification cards, driver’s

8 licenses, and federal tax reporting forms (W-2). Doc. 584, ¶ 60; Doc. 589 at 40.

9

2. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

10

Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that a majority of those referred by law

11 enforcement agencies for identity theft prosecutions are unauthorized aliens. Doc. 525 at

12 9; Doc. 584-1, ¶ 120. A full 93% of MCSO’s referrals of identity theft and forgery cases

13 were derived from Defendant Arpaio’s workplace investigations. Doc. 525 at 9. These

14 investigations generally would begin with a tip from the community regarding a specific

15 place of business and its employees, usually made to telephone and email hotlines set up

16 by MCSO. Doc. 538 at 19; Doc. 525 at 12. MCSO would then investigate the tip and, if

17 evidence suggested employees of the business were engaged in identity theft or forgery,

18 apply for a warrant to search the worksite. Id. While executing the warrant, MCSO

19 would review and seize employment files and arrest individual workers believed to have

20 committed identity theft or forgery. Id. Among other records, MCSO would seize Form

21 I-9 documents. Doc. 538 at 28; Doc. 573, ¶ 80. Through 2014, MCSO conducted over

22 80 workplace investigations, resulting in the arrest of at least 806 employees who were

23 almost exclusively unauthorized aliens. Doc. 538 at 19; Doc. 573, ¶ 59. According to

24 Defendant Arpaio, MCSO was “enforce[ing] the illegal immigration laws by virtue of

25 going into businesses and locking up the employees with fake IDs.” Doc. 621, ¶ 77;

26 Doc. 573, ¶ 77.

27

D. Field Preemption.

28

“[F]ield preemption can be inferred either where there is a regulatory framework

- 12 -

1 so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it or where the

2 federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude

3 enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d

4 1006, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). “[W]here a

5 multiplicity of federal statutes or regulations govern and densely criss-cross a given field,

6 the pervasiveness of such federal laws will help to sustain a conclusion that Congress

7 intended to exercise exclusive control over the subject matter.” Laurence H. Tribe,

8 American Constitutional Law, § 6-31, at 1206-07. “The nature of the power exerted by

9 Congress, the object sought to be attained, and the character of the obligations imposed

10 by the law, are all important in considering the question of whether supreme federal

11 enactments preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Hines, 312 U.S. at

12 70.

13

Citing the Court’s previous preliminary injunction order, Plaintiffs argue that

14 Congress has preempted a field of “unauthorized-alien fraud in obtaining employment,”

15 as related to the federal employment verification process. Doc. 538 at 23; Doc. 606 at 11.

16 According to Plaintiffs, this definition of the preempted field was not disturbed by the

17 Ninth Circuit and remains law of the case. Id.

18

The Court’s previous ruling, while certainly relevant, was made at the preliminary

19 injunction phase and thus was based only on likelihoods – whether Plaintiffs were likely

20 to prevail on the merits of their claim. Puente, 76 F.Supp.3d. at 853. The Court’s

21 decision was also made on a smaller factual record and less briefing than this ruling. The

22 Court is not bound by its previous decision, and, on the more complete presentations now

23 available, has taken a closer look at both Congress’ actions and Defendants’ applications

24 of the challenged laws. As discussed below, the Court finds a narrower congressional

25 intent than it found in the preliminary injunction ruling.

26

Plaintiffs themselves depart from the field identified in the Court’s preliminary

27 injunction ruling. They argue that the preempted field is unauthorized alien fraud

28 committed in the federal employment verification process, and that this preemption must

- 13 -

1 be expanded to include any false documents provided by an unauthorized alien to an

2 employer in order to maintain consistency with false information provided in the

3 verification process. Doc. 606 at 11 n.6. Thus, Plaintiffs would include in the preempted

4 field not only the use of false documents submitted in the I-9 process or to show

5 authorization to work under federal law, but also the use of any false communication

6 made in the employment context in order to be consistent with the I-9 false identity, such

7 as false tax forms, payroll forms, or applications for employment benefits.

8

Plaintiffs argue that this broad field has been preempted by IRCA’s process for

9 verifying eligibility of prospective employees, the variety of civil and criminal sanctions

10 for employers who knowingly employ unauthorized aliens, and extensive civil, criminal,

11 and immigration penalties for unauthorized aliens who engage in employment

12 verification fraud. Doc. 538 at 14-15. As the intent of Congress is the touchstone, the 13 Court will look closely at each of the laws and regulations cited by Plaintiffs.3

14

1. The Use Limitation.

15

Section 1324a(b)(5) provides that the Form I-9, and “any information contained in

16 or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of

17 this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18.” 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1324a(b)(5). This prohibition, which the Court will refer to in this order as the “use

19 limitation,” prohibits the use of the Form I-9 and any attached documents for any purpose

20 other than enforcement of specific federal criminal statutes. They cannot be used for

21 other purposes, including state prosecutions. The use limitation certainly is relevant in

22 assessing Congress’s intent for preemption purposes, but the focus of the provision is

23 quite narrow. It applies only to Form I-9 and documents appended to the form. Id.

24

25

26

27 3 The United States filed an amicus curie brief with the Ninth Circuit on the appeal of the

28

Court’s preliminary injunction ruling. Puente Arizona et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio et al., Defendants-Appellants, 2016 WL 1181917 (C.A.9)

(“Amicus Brief”). The Court has considered the arguments and citations in that brief.

- 14 -

1

2. Criminal, Civil, and Immigration Statutes.

2

As Plaintiffs note, “Congress anticipated that some individuals might respond to

3 the new employment verification system by relying on false information or documents.”

4 Doc. 538 at 14. As a result, Congress established several provisions relating to fraud

5 committed by unauthorized aliens. Plaintiffs rely heavily on these statutes for their

6 preemption argument, but a close examination shows that they too have a narrow focus:

7 Congress limited the statutes either to fraud committed in the I-9 process or fraud in

8 satisfying a requirement or seeking a benefit under federal immigration law generally.

9

a. Criminal Penalties.

10

The federal criminal statute cited by Plaintiffs is 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Under part (a)

11 of this section, which was amended by the IRCA to apply to employment, an individual

12 is subject to fines and imprisonment if he or she:

13

knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or

14

nonimmigrant visa . . . or other document prescribed by statute or

regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or

15

. . . employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use,

16

possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa . . . or other document

prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of

17

authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be

18

forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by

means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured

19

by fraud or unlawfully obtained[.]

20 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (emphasis added).
21 As relevant here, this statute prohibits a very specific kind of employment-related
22 fraud: use of false documents “prescribed by statute or regulation . . . as evidence of
23 authorized . . . employment in the United States.” Id. Thus, the only employment fraud
24 prohibited by part (a) is fraud in specific documents – those prescribed by federal law to
25 show work authorization in the United States. As explained above, federal regulations
26 establish three categories of documents to be used in the I-9 process: List A documents
27 that can be used to show both identity and work authorization, List B documents that can
28 be used only to show identity, and List C documents that can be used only to show work

- 15 -

1 authorization. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(v). Section 1546(a)’s prohibition on false

2 employment-related documents applies only to List A and List C documents – those used

3 to show work authorization. The Ninth Circuit has confirmed this reading of the statute.

4 See United States v. Wei Lin, 738 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013).

5

Section 1546(b) provides criminal penalties for the use of false identification

6 documents or false attestations, and it too is limited to the I-9 process:

7

Whoever uses –

8

(1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the

9

document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor,

10

(2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the

document is false, or

11

(3) a false attestation,

12 for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Immigration

13

and Nationality Act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5

14

years, or both.

15 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b). The reference to section 274A(b) of the Immigration and

16 Nationality Act is to 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), the statute that establishes the I-9 process.

17 Thus, part (b) of this statute, like part (a), is limited to fraud in the I-9 process.

18

Turning then to congressional intent, the precise language of § 1546(a) and (b)

19 shows that Congress had a narrow target: fraud in the I-9 process. Congress did not

20 prohibit employment fraud generally. Thus, the Court cannot conclude from the relevant

21 criminal statute that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of unauthorized alien

22 fraud in the employment context.

23

b. Civil Penalties.

24

The civil penalties cited by Plaintiffs are similarly focused. Congress set out a

25 range of unlawful conduct for which civil penalties can be imposed in 8 U.S.C. § 1324c.

26 The penalties can range from $250 to $5,000. 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d)(3). The unlawful

27 conduct includes making false documents, using false documents, using a document

28 issued to another person, and receiving a document issued to another person.

- 16 -

1 § 1324c(a)(1)-(5). This unlawful conduct, however, is limited to actions taken for

2 specific purposes: “satisfying a requirement of this chapter or to obtain a benefit under

3 this chapter,” “to satisfy any requirement of this chapter or to obtain a benefit under this

4 chapter,” or “for the purpose of complying with section 1324a(b).” 8 U.S.C.

5 § 1324c(a)(1)-(4). The unlawful conduct may also include fraud in “any application for

6 benefits under this chapter, or any document required under this chapter, or any

7 document submitted in connection with such application or document.” 8 U.S.C.

8 § 1324c(a)(5).

9

The references in these civil penalty provisions to “this chapter” is to Chapter 12

10 of Title 8, which addresses a broad range of immigration matters such as immigration

11 qualifications and procedures, alien registration, naturalization, refugee resettlement,

12 removal of aliens, and criminal penalties for immigration crimes. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-

13 1537. The civil penalties for fraud related to these broad-ranging immigration laws do

14 not, in the Court’s view, reveal any intent of Congress to preempt state prosecution of

15 identity theft in the employment context. The penalties instead reflect a broad intent to

16 penalize those who defraud the nation’s immigration system. They do not support

17 Plaintiffs’ employment-specific preemption argument. Plaintiffs do not challenge the

18 identity theft statutes on the ground that Defendants are using them to prosecute broad-

19 ranging immigration fraud.

20

The civil penalty provisions do make specific reference to one statute: 8 U.S.C.

21 § 1324a(b). Again, this is the statute that establishes the I-9 process. Thus, to the extent

22 that one can discern any preemptive intent from the civil penalty provisions, it is

23 narrowly focused on the I-9 process. As with the criminal provision discussed above, the

24 Court cannot conclude that Congress intended to occupy the entire field of unauthorized

25 alien fraud in employment.

26

c. Immigration Consequences.

27

Plaintiffs also rely on immigration consequences imposed on aliens who commit

28 fraud – that is, adverse consequences that can occur in the immigration process to persons

- 17 -

1 who commit fraud. But these statutes are also narrowly focused.

2

8 U.S.C. § 1227 provides that an alien may be removed from the United States if

3 he or she has been convicted of “a violation of, or an attempt or a conspiracy to violate,

4 section 1546 of Title 18.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii). As we have already seen,

5 § 1546 is limited to the I-9 process.

6

Section 1227 also provides that “[a]ny alien who falsely represents, or has falsely

7 represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under

8 this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is

9 deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)(i). This provision focuses on fraud under the

10 immigration laws of Chapter 12, as discussed above, and § 1324a, which is the I-9

11 process. It has the same narrow focus as the civil penalty provisions.

12

This section – as well as § 1182 discussed below – also refers to fraud committed

13 for any purpose, or to obtain any benefit, under “Federal or State law,” but the Court

14 cannot find in this phrase a congressional intent to preempt state regulation of all fraud in

15 employment. Because these statutes are identifying situations under which aliens are

16 inadmissible or deportable, they necessarily have a broader focus than fraud in the I-9

17 process. Congress intended to sweep in many kinds of fraudulent conduct that could

18 affect a person’s suitability for citizenship or legal residency. But nothing in the

19 language, and nothing cited by Plaintiffs, suggests that this general mention of federal

20 and state law has anything to do with employment, or represents a specific intent to

21 preempt prosecution of employment fraud outside the I-9 process. The Court cannot

22 conclude that a broad description of events that might affect the right to citizenship or

23 residency shows a “clear and manifest” intent to prevent states from regulating all

24 unauthorized alien fraud in the employment context. Puente, 821 F.3d at 1104.

25

Section 1182 provides that “[a]ny alien who falsely represents, or has falsely

26 represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or

27 benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or

28 State law is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(1). Again, the focus is on

- 18 -

1 obtaining benefits under the immigration chapter and, specifically, the I-9 process. Like

2 § 1227, the statute has the same narrow focus as the civil penalty provisions.

3

One provision is a bit broader. It states that an alien is not eligible for adjustment

4 of status if he or she “continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an

5 application for adjustment of status.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c). This provision does refer to

6 unauthorized employment generally, but it does not focus on fraud. The penalty arises

7 from being employed when unauthorized. Thus, although it has a somewhat broader

8 focus than the other provisions Plaintiffs cite, it does not show a clear and manifest 9 congressional intent to focus on employment-related fraud outside the I-9 process. 4

10

d. Conclusion from Plaintiffs’ Statutes.

11

After carefully reviewing these statutes, the Court cannot conclude that Congress

12 has expressed a clear and manifest intent to occupy the field of unauthorized alien fraud

13 in seeking employment. The focus of the criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1546, is the I-9

14 process. The focus of the civil penalty statutes is the I-9 process and fraud committed to

15 comply with or obtain benefits from immigration laws found in Chapter 12 of Title 8.

16 The immigration consequences also focus primarily on obtaining benefits under the

17 immigration chapter and, specifically, the I-9 process. The Court cannot find in these

18 statutes the broad preemptive intent Plaintiffs espouse.

19

3. Plaintiffs’ Other Arguments.

20

Plaintiffs argue that Congress has manifested a clear intent to focus penalties on

21 employers rather than employees in the regulation of unauthorized alien employment.

22 Doc. 538 at 16. According to this argument, Congress’s failure to provide harsher

23 criminal and civil penalties for fraud committed by unauthorized aliens was a deliberate

24 decision. But the specific area in which Congress chose to impose less harsh penalties

25

26

4 Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) provides that “[a]ny alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has

27

procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.” This provision is primarily focused

28

on fraudulent admission to the United States or obtaining other benefits under the immigration chapter. It is not employment-specific and does not show a congressional

intent to preempt regulation of employment-related fraud.

- 19 -

1 was narrow – the I-9 process or efforts to obtain benefits from or comply with federal

2 immigration law. The statutes reviewed above impose no penalties for employment-

3 related fraud outside the I-9 process, and the Court therefore cannot conclude that

4 Plaintiffs’ lighter-penalties argument proves a clear and manifest preemptive intent.

5

Plaintiffs also argue that “undocumented immigrants who submit false identity

6 information in the I-9 process have to complete other employment-related paperwork to

7 get or maintain a job – and their use of the same false information on those other

8 documents to maintain the same identity is still being done for an immigration-related

9 reason, to prove that they are authorized to work in the United States.” Doc. 606 at 8

10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, Plaintiffs argue, any fraud committed

11 in the employment context simply to maintain consistency with the false identity used in

12 the I-9 process falls within the federally preempted field of unauthorized alien fraud in

13 the federal employment verification system. Doc. 538 at 26.

14

The Court is not persuaded. While it may be true that unauthorized aliens must

15 maintain a consistent false identity in all of their employment-related communications,

16 such an obvious fact would not have been lost on Congress. And yet Congress clearly

17 directed its statutes at the I-9 process, not other aspects of the employment relationship.

18

What is more, Plaintiffs’ consistency argument proves too much. If Congress has

19 preempted the prosecution of any identify fraud undertaken to be consistent with fraud

20 committed in the I-9 process, such preemption would extend well beyond fraud

21 committed to obtain employment. It would encompass fraud on tax forms, payroll

22 benefits forms, insurance forms, and even direct deposit forms submitted to an employer.

23 Although these forms are not intended to demonstrate work authorization, state

24 prosecutions based on them would, under Plaintiffs’ theory, be preempted so long as the

25 individual used the same identity as he used in the I-9 process.

26

Nor would the preemptive effect stop at the employer. For example, the

27 individual who submitted a false direct deposit form to his employer, using the same false

28 name already used on his Form I-9, would inevitably need to open a bank account to

- 20 -

1 receive the direct deposits, and the account would also need to be in the same false name.

2 Would prosecution based on use of the false name at the bank be preempted simply

3 because it was done to maintain consistency with fraud already committed on the Form I-

4 9? What if the employee sought a car loan, and used the same false name as he did on

5 the Form I-9 because he knew the lender would contact his employer to verify his

6 employment? Would his intent to be consistent with the I-9 fraud bar prosecution for

7 defrauding the lender? The Court sees no boundary to Plaintiffs’ position that Congress

8 preempted not only fraud in the I-9 process, but also fraud done to be consistent with the

9 I-9 process. Certainly the Court can find no intent of Congress to preempt so broadly, let

10 alone a clear and manifest intent.

11

Plaintiffs’ expansive preemption argument also includes inconsistencies.

12 Plaintiffs concede that “there may be a rare case where an undocumented immigrant

13 commits fraud in employment for reasons other than to demonstrate authorization to

14 work,” and that state prosecution of such fraud would not be preempted. Doc. 606 at 11-

15 12 n.6. Plaintiffs offer the example of an unauthorized alien who presents a false

16 commercial or passenger driver’s license to prove his ability to drive for the employer,

17 but they do not explain why this act would be outside the scope of their proposed field

18 preemption. Id. After all, use of the same false name on the commercial driver’s license

19 presumably is done to be consistent with the I-9 fraud.

20

4. Field Preemption Conclusion.

21

In summary, the Court finds a clear and manifest congressional intent to preempt

22 a relatively narrow field: state prosecution of fraud in the I-9 process. This intent is

23 reflected in the use limitation of § 1324a(b)(5) and also in the fact that the criminal, civil,

24 and immigration penalties discussed above all focus primarily on the I-9 process. They

25 represent comprehensive federal regulation of this narrow field.

26

But the Court finds no clear and manifest congressional intent to preempt state

27 regulation of anything beyond fraud committed directly in the Form I-9 process. The

28 criminal, civil, and immigration statutes do not attempt to regulate employment-related

- 21 -

1 fraud beyond the Form I-9 and its attachments.

2

When Congress did address other law enforcement actions directly – in the use

3 limitation – it chose to foreclose nothing beyond the Form I-9 and attached documents. 8

4 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5). Granted, an “express preemption provision . . . does not bar the

5 ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles or impose a special burden making it

6 more difficult to establish the preemption of laws falling outside the clause.” Arizona,

7 132 S. Ct. at 2496 (internal quotation marks omitted). But as the Ninth Circuit has

8 explained:

9

express provisions for preemption of some state laws imply that Congress

10

intentionally did not preempt state law generally, or in respects other than

those it addressed. When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption

11

and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing

12

that issue, and when that provision provides a reliable indicium of

congressional intent with respect to state authority, there is no need to infer

13

congressional intent to preempt state laws from the substantive provisions

14

of the legislation. This applies the familiar principle of statutory

construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This is not a rule of law,

15

but one of interpretation, based on how language is ordinarily used.

16

Nevertheless, the congressional narrowness and precision in preempting

some state laws cuts against an inference of a congressional intention to

17

preempt laws with a broad brush, and without express reference.

18 Keams v. Tempe Tech. Inst., Inc., 39 F.3d 222, 225 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation

19 marks and citations omitted).

20

The Court notes that it does not read the use limitation as narrowly as Defendants.

21 They argue that the limitation applies only to use of the Form I-9 to prove the elements of

22 a crime. Docs. 510 at 16; 534 at 24-27. This interpretation is not supported by the plain

23 meaning of the text. The limitation encompasses not only the Form I-9, but any

24 document “appended to such form,” and the provision prohibits “use” of Form I-9

25 generally, not just use as evidence. The word “use” would appear to include use in

26 investigations. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history of the IRCA,

27 which suggests that the use limitation was included to address “[c]oncern . . . that

28 verification information could create a ‘paper trail’ resulting in the utilization of this

- 22 -

1 information for the purpose of apprehending undocumented aliens.” H.R. Rep. 99-682(I-

2 II) (1986) at 8-9. The Court agrees with the position of the federal government expressed

3 in its Amicus Brief before the Ninth Circuit:

4

In stating that information within or accompanying the Form I-9 “may not

5

be used” other than for enumerated federal purposes, § 1324a(b)(5) does

not distinguish between reliance on such information for investigation or

6

prosecution. In practical terms, § 1324a(b)(5) therefore constrains state and

7

local law enforcement’s ability to rely on the Form I-9 as an investigative

lead, or as the basis for obtaining a warrant to raid a workplace thought to

8

be employing unauthorized aliens.

9 Amicus Brief, at *14.
10 The Court concludes that Defendants are field preempted from using the Form I-9
11 and accompanying documents for investigations or prosecutions of violations of the
12 Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes. As noted above, this includes approximately
13 10 percent of the employment-related identity theft and forgery cases prosecuted between
14 2005 and 2015. The Court will seek additional briefing on the appropriate relief.
15 E. Conflict Preemption.
16 “There are two types of conflict preemption. Conflict preemption occurs where
17 (1) it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law, or (2) where the state law
18 stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
19 objectives of Congress.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1104. Conflict preemption can occur where
20 “inconsistency of sanctions . . . undermines the congressional calibration of force.”
21 Crosby, 530 U.S. at 380. Additionally, even where state and federal laws have similar
22 aims, a “[c]onflict in technique can be fully as disruptive to the system Congress enacted
23 as conflict in overt policy.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505 (internal quotations omitted).
24 The Ninth Circuit has also found conflict preemption where state laws “divest[ed] federal
25 authorities of the exclusive power to prosecute [certain] crimes.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d
26 at 1027. As the Supreme Court has explained, however, “when the claim is that federal
27 law impliedly pre-empts state law, we require a strong showing of a conflict to overcome
28 the presumption that state and local regulation . . . can constitutionally coexist with

- 23 -

1 federal regulation.” PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 641-42 (2011) (internal

2 quotation marks omitted).

3

“To determine whether a state law conflicts with Congress’ purposes and

4 objectives, we must first ascertain the nature of the federal interest.” Hillman, 133 S. Ct.

5 at 1949–50. Here, Plaintiffs’ conflict preemption arguments focus solely on obstacle

6 preemption. Plaintiffs argue that application of the Arizona identity theft and forgery

7 statutes to unauthorized-alien employment fraud is conflict preempted because it layers

8 additional and different penalties on top of federal penalties for the same conduct,

9 undermines federal discretion in addressing alien fraud in obtaining employment, and

10 interferes with Congress’s careful balancing of priorities within the broader immigration

11 regulatory scheme. Doc. 538 at 15-16, 24, 29-30.

12

The Court is not persuaded. As already noted, federal statutes cited by Plaintiffs

13 provide criminal and civil penalties only for fraud committed directly in the I-9 process,

14 or to satisfy other immigration requirements or receive other immigration benefits. To

15 the extent evidence shows that the identity theft and forgery statutes have been applied to

16 I-9 conduct, they clearly are layered on top of federal penalties and the application is

17 conflict preempted – in addition to being field preempted, as shown above. But state

18 penalties imposed on fraud committed outside the I-9 process do not layer additional

19 consequences on top of federal penalties because the federal penalties do not address

20 non-I-9 conduct, as also shown above.

21

Plaintiffs argue that “use of a false identity on non-I-9 documents to be consistent

22 with information workers provide in the employment verification status is the same

23 activity for these purposes as use of a false identity on an I-9.” Doc. 606 at 16. The

24 Court does not agree. Use of a false name in the I-9 process is done to establish federal

25 authorization to work. Use of the same false name on an employer’s direct-deposit

26 payroll form, for example, is done for a different purpose – to obtain the convenience of

27 direct payroll deposits. True, the employee logically will use the same false name on the

28 payroll form that he used on the I-9 form, but the act is different and the purpose is

- 24 -

1 different. The two acts constitute separate crimes in separate spheres – one extensively

2 regulated by Congress and one not. The Court concludes that state regulation of fraud

3 outside the I-9 process does not conflict with statutes that focus directly on that process

4 and say nothing about the broader employment context.

5

Plaintiffs cite various non-statutory sources to argue that the federal government

6 has a variety of interests related to immigration and alien employment (Doc. 538 at 24),

7 and that application of the Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes will “interfere with

8 the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of

9 aliens.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505. Plaintiffs stress congressional concern about the

10 possibility of undermining labor standards and protections. They cite to the legislative

11 history of the IRCA:

12

[T]he committee does not intend that any provision of this Act would limit

13

the powers of State or Federal labor standards . . . , in conformity with

existing law, to remedy unfair practices committed against undocumented

14

employees for exercising their rights before such agencies or for engaging

15

in activities protected by these agencies. To do otherwise would be

counter-productive of our intent to limit the hiring of undocumented

16

employees and the depressing effect on working conditions caused by their

17

employment.

18 H.R. Rep. 99-682, 8-9 (1986).

19

Additionally, Plaintiffs refer to a variety of policy statements and agreements

20 made by federal agencies that express an intention to ensure that immigration law does

21 not undermine labor and employment protections or contribute to the vulnerability of

22 unauthorized aliens to abusive employment conditions. See Doc. 538 at 16; Amicus

23 Brief, at *18-20. The Amicus Brief cites a 2015 Action Plan from the Interagency Work

24 Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration

25 Laws, which seeks to coordinate efforts to enforce labor, employment, and immigration

26 laws. Id. The government further notes that “[f]ederal law enforcement officials

27 routinely rely on foreign nationals, including unauthorized aliens, to build cases,

28 particularly against human traffickers. . . . The ability to [do so] advances important

- 25 -

1 federal interests that would be thwarted by parallel state prosecutions of the same

2 individuals for offenses already regulated by federal law.” Amicus Brief, at *18-19.

3 Plaintiffs also assert that the United States has entered into a number of treaties relating

4 to labor rights, suggesting that state interference in the regulation of alien employment

5 will likely interfere with foreign relations. Doc. 538 at 17; Amicus Brief, at *20.

6 According to Plaintiffs, application of the identity theft and forgery statutes to fraud

7 committed to maintain consistency with the From I-9 will interfere with federal discretion

8 and priorities and undermine the federal government’s ability to balance important 9 interests.5

10

Although these citations do show a federal intent to balance important interests,

11 Plaintiffs’ argument again proves too much. If prosecution of an unauthorized alien for

12 using a false identity on a state tax form submitted to his employer would interfere with

13 the federal government’s discretion not to prosecute that alien (and thereby retain him,

14 say, as a witness for an unfair labor case), prosecution of the alien for submitting the

15 same false identity to a bank or a car lender would have the same effect. Indeed, virtually

16 any prosecution of the alien by the State would likely eliminate him as a potential witness

17 for the federal government. And yet Plaintiffs do not argue, and could not credibly argue,

18 that all prosecutions of unauthorized aliens for fraud or identity theft are conflict

19 preempted. Plaintiffs attempt to draw a line around the employment context, limiting

20 conflict preemption to fraud committed by unauthorized aliens in their employment, but

21 the Court can find no legal basis on which to so limit Plaintiffs’ conflict preemption

22 theory, and, more importantly, no evidence that Congress intended to draw such a line.

23 As noted above, the criminal, civil, and immigration statutes relied on by Plaintiffs draw

24

25 5 Plaintiffs note that Congress has recognized that unauthorized aliens can be victims of

26

human trafficking, and has provided that “[v]ictims of severe forms of trafficking should not be inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for unlawful acts

27

committed as a direct result of being trafficked, such as using false documents, entering the country without documentation, or working without documentation.” 22 U.S.C. §

28

7101(b)(19). But Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that victims of human trafficking who have used false documents “as a direct result of being trafficked” have been

prosecuted by Defendants under the Arizona identity theft and forgery laws.

- 26 -

1 a narrower line, limiting their application to fraud in the I-9 process.

2

Moreover, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to show that Defendants’

3 application of the Arizona laws has had a practical effect on the federal government’s

4 ability to maintain labor standards and protect against employer abuse. As already noted,

5 factual findings are crucial to establish conflict in an as-applied preemption analysis.

6 Puente, 821 F.3d at 1105

7

The Court does not doubt that federal officials seek to preserve their ability to

8 enforce labor laws and to use unauthorized aliens as witnesses when needed. And it is

9 true that state prosecution of unauthorized aliens outside of the I-9 process might at times

10 be in tension with that federal desire. But the question to be answered by the Court is not

11 what preemption holding will produce the smoothest path for government. The Court is

12 not a general ombudsman, at liberty to fashion a preemption ruling that accommodates

13 priorities that appear to be important. The key question – the “touchstone” – is the intent

14 of Congress. Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 565; Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 485. And as discussed in

15 detail above, the Court can find no basis on which to conclude that Congress intended to 16 preclude states from prosecuting the use of false identities outside the I-9 process.6

17

In addition, as the Ninth Circuit observed on a related point, “[a]lthough there is

18 tension between the federal scheme and some applications of the identity theft laws, we

19 hold that this tension is not enough to rise to the level of a ‘clear and manifest purpose’ to

20 preempt the identity theft laws in their entirety.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1105. Similarly,

21

22 6 The Court acknowledges that “[f]ederal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than

23 federal statutes.” Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982); see also Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 94 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 1996).

24 “Where Congress has delegated the authority to regulate a particular field to an

25

administrative agency, the agency’s regulations issued pursuant to that authority have no less preemptive effect than federal statutes, assuming those regulations are a valid

26 exercise of the agency’s delegated authority.” Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., 539

27

F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008). But the policy statements, action plans, and agency agreements cited by Plaintiffs are not regulations and thus are not “federal law which

28 preempts contrary state law.” Id. at 244 (emphasis in original). “[N]othing short of

federal law can have that effect.” Id.

- 27 -

1 this Court finds that the policy tensions identified by Plaintiffs are not enough to show a

2 clear and manifest intent by Congress to preclude application of state identity theft and

3 forgery laws outside the I-9 process. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that Arizona’s exercise

4 of its historic police powers to protect its citizens from identity theft has done “major

5 damage” to “clear and substantial” federal interests. Hillman, 133 S. Ct. at 1950. As

6 already noted, “when the claim is that federal law impliedly pre-empts state law, we

7 require a strong showing of a conflict to overcome the presumption that state and local

8 regulation . . . can constitutionally coexist with federal regulation.” PLIVA, 564 U.S. at

9 641-42. The Court sees no strong showing of conflict between application of the identity

10 theft and forgery statutes outside the I-9 process and federal statutes that are limited to

11 that process.

12

The Court accordingly finds that the only conflict Congress clearly and manifestly

13 intended to preempt is that caused by application of the Arizona identity theft and forgery

14 statutes to unauthorized alien fraud committed in the I-9 process. As noted, the Court

15 will seek additional briefing on the proper remedy for this preemption finding.

16 IV. Equal Protection Claim.

17

Plaintiffs claim that the Arizona identity theft laws (again, the portions added by

18 amendments in 2007 and 2008) violate their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal

19 protection. “The first step in determining whether a law violates the Equal Protection

20 Clause is to identify the classification that it draws.” Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson,

21 122 F.3d 692, 702 (9th Cir. 1997). The classification helps the court determine whether

22 “members of a certain group [are] being treated differently from other persons based on

23 membership in the group.” United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir.

24 1995). “[I]f it is demonstrated that a cognizable class is treated differently, the court

25 must analyze under the appropriate level of scrutiny whether the distinction made

26 between the groups is justified.” Id.

27

A. Classification.

28

A law’s classification can be determined in one of three ways. First, the law may

- 28 -

1 classify on its face, by its explicit terms. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

2 Second, the law, although neutral on its face, may be applied in a discriminatory way.

3 See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Third, the law, although neutral on

4 its face and applied according to its terms, may have been enacted with a purpose of

5 discriminating. See e.g., Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985).

6

Only the third method is relevant here. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Arizona

7 identify theft laws are neutral on their face – they apply to all Arizona residents,

8 authorized or unauthorized, who use false identities in obtaining employment. And

9 Plaintiffs do not argue that the application of the laws creates an improper classification;

10 Plaintiffs have dismissed their as-applied equal protection claim. Doc. 139. Thus, if the

11 Court is to find that the identity theft laws classify in a way that raises equal protection

12 concerns, it must do so on the basis of legislative purpose.

13

To establish a discriminatory purpose, Plaintiffs must show that the legislature

14 “selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not

15 merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Pers. Adm’r of

16 Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). The Supreme Court has identified

17 several factors to be considered when determining whether a legislative action was

18 undertaken for a discriminatory purpose. Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.

19 Corp., 429 U.S. 252, (1977). These include the historical background of the statute, the

20 sequence of events that led to its enactment, whether the legislature departed from normal

21 legislative procedures, the legislative history of the statute, and, “[i]n some extraordinary

22 instances,” actual testimony from legislators. Id. at 267-68.

23

The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should be cautious when deciding

24 whether a statute was enacted for a discriminatory purpose. “Proving the motivation

25 behind official action is often a problematic undertaking.” Hunter v. Underwood, 471

26 U.S. 222, 228 (1985). The task “demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and

27 direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266. As

28 the Supreme Court has explained:

- 29 -

1

“Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter.

2

When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will

look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the

3

legislature, because the benefit to sound decision-making in this

4

circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress’ purpose. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to

5

void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face,

6

on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it. What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not

7

necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are

sufficiently high for us to eschew guesswork.” 8

9 Hunter, 471 U.S. at 228 (quoting United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383-384

10 (1968)).

11

Even with these cautions in mind, the Court concludes that the Arizona identity

12 theft statutes were amended to apply to employment, at least in part, for their effect on

13 unauthorized aliens. As recounted above, the laws were passed as part of a larger

14 package of legislation focused on illegal immigration. Doc. 575 at 15. The titles of the

15 legislation – the “Legal Arizona Workers Act” and “Employment of Unauthorized

16 Aliens” – were consistent with this focus, and Plaintiffs cite several statements by

17 Arizona lawmakers expressing an intent to target unauthorized aliens and discourage

18 illegal immigration. Doc. 621 at 4-8; Doc. 538 at 17-18; Doc. 575 at 16-21; Doc. 588 at

19 14-17. Plaintiffs also provide evidence regarding the immigration-focused context in

20 which the laws were enacted. Doc. 588 at 17-19. Thus, as the Ninth Circuit and this

21 Court previously found, the legislative history surrounding the enactment of these bills

22 indicates “an intent on the part of Arizona legislators to prevent unauthorized aliens from

23 coming to and remaining in the state.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1102; see also Puente, 76 F. 24 Supp. 3d at 855.7

25

26

7 A law’s effect on a particular group can also be probative of the legislature’s purpose. Reno v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 487 (1997). The parties present much

27

evidence on the actual effect of the identity theft laws, but the Court does not find it helpful on the question of purpose. Although the statistics show that the vast majority of

28

persons prosecuted for identity theft in the employment context are unauthorized aliens, Plaintiffs do not contend that the number of those prosecutions has been disproportionate

to the rate at which unauthorized aliens actually commit identity theft in the employment

- 30 -

1

But the focus on illegal immigration was not the only legislative purpose. As

2 noted above, the Arizona identity theft statutes were enacted to combat a very real and

3 growing problem. After its enactment in 1996, § 13-2008 was amended in 1997 to drop

4 the requirement of “financial loss,” 1997 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 136, § 14 (H.B. 2408),

5 and in 2000 to encompass “any personal identifying information,” 2000 Ariz. Legis.

6 Serv. Ch. 189, § 8 (H.B. 2428). Plaintiffs make no argument that these enactments had a

7 discriminatory purpose. Nor do they claim that passage of § 13-2009 in 2005 was for a

8 discriminatory purpose. Thus, there is no doubt that the identity theft statutes were

9 created to address a genuine state problem.

10

When the statutes were amended in 2007 and 2008, that problem had grown

11 worse. “Between 2006 and 2008, Arizona had the highest per-capita identity theft rates

12 in the nation, and one third of all identity theft complaints in the state involved

13 employment-related fraud.” Puente, 821 F.3d at 1002. Thus, as the Ninth Circuit noted,

14 the 2007 and 2008 amendments “were also aimed at curbing the growing and well-

15 documented problem of identity theft in Arizona.” Id. The Ninth Circuit also made this

16 relevant observation:

17

Since the laws were amended, Arizona has been aggressively enforcing

18

employment-related identity theft. Although most of these enforcement

actions have been brought against unauthorized aliens, some authorized

19

aliens and U.S. citizens have also been prosecuted. And while many of the

20

people prosecuted under the identity theft laws used a false identity to

prove that they are authorized to work in the United States, other

21

defendants used false documents for non-immigration related reasons. For

22

example, Arizona has prosecuted U.S. citizens who used another

individual’s identity to hide a negative criminal history from a potential

23

employer.

24

25

26

context. Doc. 589 at 46. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede that they cannot make this showing. Doc. 588 at 22. As a result, the Court cannot find from their effects that the identity theft

27

laws discriminate – that the laws punish unauthorized aliens offenders at a higher proportion than offenders in other groups. Plaintiffs argue that the sheer number of

28

prosecutions is indicative of a discriminatory purpose, even if not disproportionate. The Court does not agree. A criminal law passed with absolutely no discriminatory purpose

will impose more punishment on the group that violates it most frequently.

- 31 -

1 Id. at 1102.

2

Defense expert Cohen found that the rate of identity theft in Arizona is more than

3 twice that of other states and costs Arizona residents between $2.8 and $5.1 billion

4 annually. Doc. 584, ¶¶ 6, 13. He found that employment-related identity theft was the

5 most frequent type of identity theft in 2006 (39% of complaints), and the third most

6 common in 2015 (9% of complaints). Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiffs do not dispute these findings.

7 Doc. 589 at 26.

8

Defendants also present evidence of the very real harm that results from identity

9 theft. According to Cohen, 49% of MCAO’s prosecutions for employment related

10 identity theft or forgery had at least one identifiable victim. Doc. 584, ¶ 14. He found

11 that these victims suffer a variety of harms, including unwarranted debt collections,

12 lawsuits, and IRS tax collection actions, as well as anxiety and other psychological

13 injuries. Id., ¶ 18. Additionally, identity theft in employment leads to false income

14 reporting, and Cohen found that, as a result of this false reporting, some victims in

15 Maricopa County were initially denied food stamps or medical, disability, or other forms

16 of public assistance. Id., ¶ 22. Plaintiffs do not dispute these facts. Doc. 589 at 31-32.

17

Thus, the Court finds that the Arizona legislature had more than one purpose in

18 enacting the identity theft laws. The laws were passed in part for their effect on

19 immigration by unauthorized aliens, but the legislature was also addressing a pressing

20 criminal problem that adversely affected Arizona residents.

21

The existence of these dual motives does not end the equal protection inquiry,

22 however, because Supreme Court precedent “does not require a plaintiff to prove that the

23 challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes.” Arlington Heights,

24 429 U.S. at 265. “Rarely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating

25 under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that

26 a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one.” Id. An equal protection

27 inquiry will proceed if “there is proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating

28 factor in the decision.” Id. at 265-66; see also Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 977 (9th

- 32 -

1 Cir. 2015) (“A plaintiff does not have to prove that the discriminatory purpose was the

2 sole purpose of the challenged action, but only that it was a ‘motivating factor.’”).

3

The Court finds that the effect of the identity theft statutes on unauthorized aliens

4 was a motivating factor in the Arizona legislature’s passage of the statutes. As a result,

5 Plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to show that the statutes classify unauthorized

6 aliens for purposes of equal protection scrutiny. The Court must therefore determine the

7 appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the statutes in light of this classification, and

8 whether the statutes survive such scrutiny. The parties agree that this is the next step in 9 the equal protection analysis. Doc. 588 at 25; Doc. 604 at 16.8

10

B. Level of Scrutiny.

11

The “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from

12 the States all power of classification.” Feeney, 442 U.S. at 271. It is well accepted that

13 “[m]ost laws classify, and many affect certain groups unevenly, even though the law

14 itself treats them no differently from all other members of the class described by the law.

15 When the basic classification is rationally based, uneven effects upon particular groups

16 within a class are ordinarily of no constitutional concern.” Id. at 271-72.

17

If a law classifies on the basis of race or alienage, however, it must satisfy strict

18

19

8 When evidence of a discriminatory motive is found, a defendant may seek to show that the statute would have been passed even in the absence of the motive. Hunter, 471 U.S.

20

at 225. Such a showing could, presumably, eliminate the statute’s classification and end the equal protection inquiry. Defendants attempt to make this showing by citing a

21

statement from Senator Pearce explaining the high level of identity theft in Arizona and the problems it creates, as well as a legislative debate on appropriate sanctions for

22

identity theft. Doc. 510 at 25. Even if this evidence might create a factual question as to whether the statutes would have been enacted without their effect on unauthorized aliens,

23

the Court need not deny summary judgment and proceed to trial on this issue because, as explained below, the identity theft statutes survive rigorous rational basis scrutiny even if

24

they were motivated in part by their effect on unauthorized aliens. The Court also notes, parenthetically, that a trial on whether the statutes would have been amended without the

25

focus on unauthorized aliens is difficult to envision. The primary factors for determining legislative intent – the Arlington Heights factors set forth above – are usually addressed

26

through briefing rather than trial. And for more than 200 years the Supreme Court has cautioned strongly against calling individual legislators to testify in trials. See, e.g.,

27

Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268 n.18 (“This Court has recognized, ever since Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 130-131, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810), that judicial inquiries into legislative

28

or executive motivation represent a substantial intrusion into the workings of other branches of government. Placing a decisionmaker on the stand is therefore ‘usually to be

avoided.’”).

- 33 -

1 scrutiny – the classification will be valid only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling

2 government purpose. See, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432-33 (1984). If a law

3 classifies on the basis of gender or legitimacy, the law must satisfy intermediate scrutiny

4 – the classification will be valid only if it has a substantial relationship to an important

5 government purpose. See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996). For

6 all other classifications, a law must satisfy rational basis review – the classification must

7 be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. See, e.g., Pennell v. City of San

8 Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 14 (1988).

9

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should apply a non-traditional form of heightened

10 scrutiny used in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Plyler concerned a Texas law that

11 denied a public education to the children of unauthorized aliens. Plyler appears to apply

12 a hybrid form of review, stating that the law in question “can hardly be considered

13 rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.” Id. at 224. Wherever one

14 fits this unusual test in the established levels of equal protection scrutiny, the Court

15 concludes that Plyler does not apply to this case. As the Court explained in its

16 preliminary injunction ruling:

17

Plaintiffs initially argue that some form of “heightened scrutiny”

18

should apply. Relying on Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), they argue

that the Court should assess whether the identity theft laws further a

19

substantial or important state interest. While “states must generally treat

20

lawfully present aliens the same as citizens, and state classifications based

on alienage are subject to strict scrutiny review,” Korab v. Fink, 748 F.3d

21

875, 881 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (citing In re Griffiths, 413 U.S.

22

717, 719-22 (1973)), the same is not true for unauthorized aliens.

“Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because their

23

presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a ‘constitutional

24

irrelevancy.’” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223. . . . The [Supreme] Court explained

that “undocumented status is not irrelevant to any proper legislative goal.

25

Nor is undocumented status an absolutely immutable characteristic since it

26

is the product of conscious, indeed unlawful action.” Id. at 220. The [Supreme] Court ultimately applied a form of rational basis review to the

27

law, finding that the law could not “be considered rational unless it furthers

28

some substantial goal of the State.” Id. at 224.

- 34 -

1

This language of furthering “some substantial goal” is different from

2

traditional rational basis review, under which a court “will uphold the

legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relationship to some

3

legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). Plaintiffs

4

argue that this “substantial goal” test should apply here. The Court disagrees. Plyler’s holding was expressly grounded on the unique

5

vulnerability of children and the importance of education. The Court

6

emphasized that the Texas law was “directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which

7

children can have little control.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220. The Court

contrasted this with the situation of adult unauthorized aliens, whose

8

presence is “the product of conscious, indeed unlawful, action.” Id.

9

Because the present case does not involve children and public education,

the Court finds that a heightened scrutiny is not appropriate. 10

11 Puente, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 864 (emphasis in original, parallel and docket citations

12 omitted). Plaintiffs’ summary judgment arguments do not persuade the Court that this

13 conclusion was incorrect, and the Court will adhere to it.

14

Given that strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny do not apply here, and that

15 Plyler is not controlling, the Court is left with rational basis review. Ordinarily, courts

16 apply rational basis review in a highly deferential manner, upholding a challenged law

17 “‘if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis

18 for the classification.’” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993) (quoting FCC v. Beach

19 Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)) (emphasis added). This reflects “deference to

20 legislative policy decisions” and a reluctance “to judge the wisdom, fairness, logic or

21 desirability of those choices.” LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 421 (5th Cir. 2005).

22

Some cases have applied a more rigorous form of rational basis review. These

23 include U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973), City of Cleburne v.

24 Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), and

25 Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs argue that these cases

26 should control if Plyler does not. But even if the Court applies the more rigorous rational

27 basis review reflected in these cases, the Arizona identity theft statutes survive.

28

- 35 -

1

C. Rigorous Rational Basis Review.

2

In each of these cases, the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit found that the

3 classification in question was based on animus toward the disadvantaged group and was

4 supported by no rational basis. The Court will describe these findings.

5

In Moreno, the Supreme Court invalidated an amendment to the Food Stamp Act

6 that rendered ineligible for assistance any household of unrelated individuals. 413 U.S. at

7 535-36. The Supreme Court found that the law was directed at “hippies” and was

8 “wholly without any rational basis.” Id. at 538. The Court held that a “purpose to

9 discriminate against hippies cannot, in and of itself and without reference to (some

10 independent) considerations in the public interest, justify the 1971 amendment.” Id. at

11 534-35.

12

In Cleburne, the Supreme Court invalidated a zoning ordinance that required a

13 special permit for a home for the mentally disabled. The Court noted that such special

14 permits were not required by the city for “a boarding house, nursing home, family

15 dwelling, fraternity house, or dormitory,” and found that the permit requirement bore no

16 rational relationship to any legitimate interest asserted by the city. 473 U.S. at 449.

17 Because the permit requirement was based solely “on an irrational prejudice” against the

18 mentally disabled, the Supreme Court held that it violated equal protection. Id.

19

In Romer, the Supreme Court invalidated an amendment to the Colorado

20 constitution that prohibited any action by state government to protect individuals from

21 discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The Court found that the broad and

22 undifferentiated treatment of an explicitly named group was not rationally related to the

23 asserted government interests of protecting freedom of association and conserving

24 resources to fight discrimination against other groups. 517 U.S. at 636. The Court found

25 that “the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it

26 affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” Id. at 632.

27

In Diaz, the Ninth Circuit applied Moreno to affirm a preliminary injunction

28 against an Arizona law that made same-sex partners of state employees ineligible for

- 36 -

1 healthcare benefits. The court found that the law was not rationally related to Arizona’s

2 asserted interests in promoting marriage, saving costs, or reducing administrative burden.

3 656 F.3d at 1015. The court found that the law was motivated by “a bare desire to harm a

4 politically unpopular group.” Id. (internal quotations and ellipses omitted).

5

There is a common thread in these cases. Each found that the challenged law had

6 no plausible rational basis, leaving animus as the only explanation for the enactment. As

7 this Court noted in its preliminary injunction order: “If a court finds that the only actual

8 reason for the law is a desire to discriminate, the court will invalidate the law, relying on

9 the maxim that ‘a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot

10 constitute a legitimate governmental interest.’” Puente, 76 F.3d at 865 (quoting Moreno,

11 413 U.S. at 534) (emphasis added).

12

D. Application of Rigorous Rational Basis Scrutiny.

13

Plaintiffs argue that the Arizona identity theft statutes are invalid under rigorous

14 rational basis review because they were motivated solely by animus against unauthorized

15 aliens. In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs cite statements from three legislators –

16 Senator Pearce, Representative Barnes, and Senator Huppenthal – which Plaintiffs

17 characterize as “hostile, hyperbolic, and misleading.” Doc. 588 at 28-29. Plaintiffs then

18 assert, quite remarkably, that “[t]he failure of other legislators supporting the measures to

19 challenge these animus-laced statements is further indication of an overall climate of

20 hostility toward undocumented immigrants.” Id. at 29. Plaintiffs also rely on what non-

21 legislators – regular citizens – said to some legislators, as though such statements

22 accurately reflect what the legislators were thinking.

23

All of this strikes the Court as a dangerous venture into legislative mind-reading.

24 As noted above, the Supreme Court has cautioned strongly against voiding a statute on

25 the basis of “what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it.” Hunter, 471 U.S.

26 at 228. “What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily

27 what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are sufficiently high for us to

28 eschew guesswork.” Id. All the more, a court should not, as Plaintiffs suggest, rely on

- 37 -

1 what a majority of legislators did not say, or what carefully selected citizens said.

2

To be sure, the Court has concluded that the identity theft statutes were motivated

3 in part by their potential effect on unauthorized aliens. But the Court cannot conclude

4 that this was the Arizona legislature’s only motive. As already discussed, the Court finds

5 ample evidence that combatting identity theft was another purpose of the statutes, both

6 when they were enacted and when they were later amended. The Ninth Circuit agrees.

7 Puente, 821 F.3d at 1102. The Court also finds that this legislative purpose was entirely

8 legitimate given the scope of Arizona’s identity theft problem and the damage it inflicted

9 annually on the State and its residents.

10

This legitimate state interest distinguishes this case from the rigorous rational

11 basis cases discussed above. The Arizona identity theft laws are not “wholly without any

12 rational basis” like the food stamp statute in Moreno. 413 U.S. at 538. They are not

13 based solely “on an irrational prejudice” like the special permit requirement in Cleburne.

14 473 U.S. at 449. They are not “inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class

15 [they affect]” like the constitutional amendment in Romer. 517 U.S. at 632. And they

16 are not motivated by “a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” like the law in

17 Diaz. 656 F.3d at 1015.

18

Plaintiffs argue that “the state fails to explain how it could be rational to single out

19 unauthorized aliens (or even identity theft in the employment context generally) for

20 particularly harsh treatment.” Doc. 588 at 31. But the statutes do not single out

21 unauthorized aliens; they are facially neutral. They criminalize the actions of every

22 person who steals the identity of another to obtain employment – citizen, authorized

23 alien, or unauthorized alien. Nor do the statutes single out identity theft in the

24 employment context. As amended, they apply to a broad range of conduct beyond

25 employment, as they have since their passage in 1996 and 2005. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2008,

26 13-2009. And the focus of the 2007 and 2008 amendments on the employment context

27 was entirely rational given that Arizona led the nation in identity theft and fully one-third

28 of those crimes occurred in employment.

- 38 -

1

Plaintiffs also complain that “H.B. 2779 § 1 imposed harsher punishment for

2 identity theft ‘to obtain employment’ even if committed with the consent of the other

3 person whose information is used,” and that “this distinguishes A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3)

4 from all other types of identity theft punished by A.R.S. § 13-2009(A) and A.R.S. § 13-

5 2008(A).” Doc. 588 at 31. But given the magnitude of the identity theft problem

6 Arizona faced in the employment context – employment accounted to 39% of all identity

7 theft complains in 2006 – the Court cannot conclude that the legislature acted irrationally

8 when it focused on employment fraud for harsh penalties. Nor can the Court conclude

9 that falsely using another person’s identity to obtain employment is harmless simply

10 because the other person consents. The employer is still defrauded, as are the federal and

11 state governments to which employment taxes are paid.

12

The rationality of Arizona’s action is confirmed by the fact that all 50 states have

13 enacted identity theft statutes since Arizona took the lead in 1996. http://www.ncsl.

14 org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/identity-theft-state-statutes.aspx. Congress

15 has done the same, passing 18 U.S.C. § 1028 to criminalize the theft of another’s identity.

16 Indeed, the legislative history for § 1028 strongly encourages “State and local

17 governments . . . to compliment the Federal role in this area with appropriate preventive

18 and enforcement measures.” S. Rep. No. 105-274, at 9 (1998). There can be little doubt

19 that criminalizing the theft of another’s identity is a rational government action.

20

The Court concludes, on the basis of undisputed facts, that amendment of the

21 identity theft statutes in 2007 and 2008 was not motivated solely by animus against

22 unauthorized aliens. Arizona was addressing a major criminal problem that inflicted

23 serious harm on Arizona residents. Because the resulting facially neutral laws are

24 rationally related to this legitimate state interest, this case is not like the rigorous rational

25 basis cases discussed above, and the Court concludes that the identity theft laws survive

26 rigorous rational basis review. A fortiori, the Court concludes that the laws survive the

27 less-rigorous traditional rational basis review. As a result, the Court will enter summary

28 judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims.

- 39 -

1 V. Maricopa County’s Monell Liability.

2

Under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978),

3 municipal liability attaches when a policy or custom of the local government produced a

4 plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivation. See also Fogel v. Collins, 531 F.3d 824,

5 834 (9th Cir. 2008). “For purposes of liability under Monell, a policy is a deliberate

6 choice to follow a course of action . . . made from among various alternatives by the

7 official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject

8 matter in question.” Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and

9 internal quotations omitted). A municipal policy may include the decision to enforce a

10 state law. Evers v. Custer Cnty., 745 F.2d 1196, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1984).

11

Whether a state official is a final policy maker for purposes of municipal liability

12 depends on state law, Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2001),

13 but the ultimate determination of § 1983 liability is a matter of federal law, Goldstein v.

14 City of Long Beach, 715 F.3d 750, 761 (9th Cir. 2013). “[C]ases on the liability of local

15 governments under § 1983 instruct us to ask whether governmental officials are final

16 policymakers for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue.”

17 McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997) (internal citations omitted).

18

A. County Sheriff.

19

The Court has already determined that Sheriff Arpaio is a final policymaker for

20 Maricopa County, and that Maricopa County is therefore liable for his law-enforcement

21 decisions in this case. Defendants ask the Court to reach a different decision in this

22 order, but the Court declines to do so for reasons stated in its preliminary injunction

23 ruling and in its ruling on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. See Puente, 76 F.

24 Supp. 3d at 867; Doc. 164. The Court again notes that every judge to have considered

25 this issue has found that the County has Monell liability for the Sheriff’s actions. See

26 United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1083-84 (D. Ariz. 2012); Mora v.

27 Arpaio, No. CV-09-1719-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1562443, at *7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2011);

28 Lovejoy v. Arpaio, No. CV09-1912-PHX-NVW, 2010 WL 466010, at *12 (D. Ariz. Feb.

- 40 -

1 10, 2010); Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1038-39 (D. Ariz. 2009);

2 Guillory v. Greenlee Cty., No. CV05-352TUC DCB, 2006 WL 2816600, at *3-5 (D.

3 Ariz. Sept. 28, 2006).

4

This County’s liability includes the Sheriff’s decision to enforce the Arizona

5 identity theft and forgery statutes through the workplace investigations that involved the

6 seizure of Forms I-9 and attached documents. Defendants concede Plaintiffs’ allegation

7 that Form I-9 documents were regularly seized as part of the workplace investigations

8 discussed above. Doc. 621, ¶ 80; Doc. 573, ¶ 80.

9

B. County Attorney.

10

Defendant Maricopa County asks the Court to rule on whether County Attorney

11 Montgomery is an official policymaker of the County for purposes of Monell liability.

12 Doc. 595 at 3. The Court has not decided this issue. Puente, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 868.

13 There is no question that Defendant Montgomery is the relevant policymaker concerning

14 the decision to prosecute fraud in the Form I-9 process; the issue is whether such a

15 decision is made on behalf of the county or the state.

16

Under Arizona law, the county attorney, like the sheriff, is an officer of the

17 county. A.R.S. § 11-401. The Arizona constitution provides that the county attorney is

18 elected by county voters. Ariz. Const. Art. 12 § 3. The county attorney must also reside

19 in the county in which he or she works, A.R.S. § 11-404, and each county is responsible

20 for determining the budget of its county attorney, A.R.S. § 11-201. While relevant, these

21 structural provisions and the fact that Arizona “statutory law lists [county] attorneys as

22 county officers is not dispositive because, as discussed in McMillian, the function of the

23 [government] attorney, including who can control the . . . attorney’s conduct is the issue.”

24 Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 103 (9th Cir. 2000).

25

The conduct at issue in this case is the prosecution of crimes under the identity

26 theft and forgery statutes. The relevant question is whether the Maricopa County

27 Attorney, when performing this function, “acted . . . as a policymaker for the state or for

28 the county.” Goldstein, 715 F.3d at 753. On this question, Arizona law provides a clear

- 41 -

1 answer: county attorneys “conduct, on behalf of the state, all prosecutions for public

2 offenses.” A.R.S. § 11-532.

3

The issue of Maricopa County liability for the actions of a county prosecutor was

4 recently addressed by another judge in this District. See Milke v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-

5 15-00462-PHX-ROS, 2016 WL 5339693, at *17 (D. Ariz. Jan. 8, 2016). The Milke court,

6 noting the similarities between Arizona and California law, cited a recent Ninth Circuit

7 opinion addressing Monell liability for the actions of a California prosecutor. The Ninth

8 Circuit held that “it is clear that the district attorney acts on behalf of the state when

9 conducting prosecutions.” Goldstein, 715 F.3d at 759. Milke reached the same

10 conclusion and found that the Maricopa County Attorney is “explicitly identified as

11 acting on behalf of the state when prosecuting crimes.” 2016 WL 5339693, at *17.

12

Given the clear statutory directive in § 11-532 and the analysis in Milke and

13 Goldstein, the Court also finds that the Maricopa County Attorney acts for the state when

14 conducting criminal prosecutions. The Court accordingly holds that Maricopa County is

15 not liable under Monell for any decisions by Defendant Montgomery to bring charges

16 under the Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes based on fraud committed in the 17 Form I-9 and attached documents.9

18 VI. Injunctive Relief.

19

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Defendants Arpaio, Montgomery, and

20 Maricopa County. Doc. 191 at 40. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court permit

21 additional briefing on any injunctive relief. Doc. 538 at 44. The Court concludes that

22 additional briefing is warranted because (1) the Court has found that only actions based

23 on the Form I-9 and attachments are preempted, (2) the Court has found that Maricopa

24 County is not liable for the actions of the County Attorney, (3) Sheriff Arpaio recently

25 lost a general election and will no longer be in office to pursue the policies about which

26 Plaintiffs complain, and (4) the parties have not addressed whether expungement is an

27

28

9 While this decision might at first appear to be inconsistent with the holding that the County is liable under Monell for actions of the Sheriff, state law contains no express

declaration that the Sheriff acts on behalf of the State when discharging his duties

- 42 -

1 appropriate remedy if only the use of the Form I-9 and attachments is preempted.

2

Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum on this issue, not to exceed 15 pages, by

3 December 7, 2016. Defendants shall file a joint reply, not to exceed 15 pages, by

4 December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a 7 page reply by January 4, 2017.

5

IT IS ORDERED:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 538) is granted with

7 respect to preemption of Defendants’ use of the Form I-9 and attached documents, and

8 otherwise denied.

9

2. Defendant State of Arizona’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 510) is

10 denied with respect to preemption of Defendants’ use of the Form I-9 and attached

11 documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs’ other preemption claims, and granted

12 with respect to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims.

13

3. Defendant Montgomery’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 534) is

14 denied with respect to preemption of Defendants’ use of the Form I-9 and attached

15 documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs’ other preemption claims, and granted

16 with respect to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims.

17

4. Defendant Arpaio’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 525) is denied

18 with respect to preemption of Defendants’ use of the Form I-9 and attached documents,

19 granted with respect to Plaintiffs’ other preemption claims, and granted with respect to

20 Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims.

21

5. Defendant Maricopa County’s motion for summary judgment on Monell

22 liability (Doc. 511) is denied with respect to Defendant Arpaio and granted with respect

23 to Defendant Montgomery.

24

6. The motion for leave to file excess pages (Docs. 543) is granted.

25

26

27

28

- 43 -

1

7. Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum on the appropriate remedy in this case,

2 not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 7, 2016. Defendants shall file a joint

3 reply, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a 7

4 page reply on or before January 4, 2017.

5

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2016.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 44 -

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 702 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

NO. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10 11 v.

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

12 Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The

16 issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

17

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court’s Order filed

18 March 27, 2017, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs as follows:

19

Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is granted. The Court declares as follows:

20 Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Immigration

21 Reform and Control Act, Defendants are preempted from (a) employing or relying on (b)

22 the Form I-9 and any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely 23 as part of the federal employment verification process (d) for purposes of investigating or 24 prosecuting violations of A.R.S. § 13-2002, A.R.S § 13-2008(A), or A.R.S § 13-

25 2009(A)(3). This declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified 26 by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I-9 process if they 27 were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification

28

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 702 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2

1 system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment

2 application.

3

Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff

4 Paul Penzone is granted. Defendant Penzone, as Maricopa County Sheriff, and his

5 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with

6 them, are permanently enjoined from (a) employing or relying on (b) the Form I-9 and

7 any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the

8 federal employment verification process (d) for purposes of investigating or prosecuting

9 violations of A.R.S. § 13-2002, A.R.S § 13-2008(A), or A.R.S § 13-2009(A)(3). This

10 declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified by 8 C.F.R. §

11 274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I-9 process if they were also

12 submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system,

13 such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment application.

14 Defendant Penzone shall create a written policy for MCSO consistent with this

15 permanent injunction and disseminate it within MCSO within 60 days of this order.

16

This matter is hereby terminated.

17

Brian D. Karth

District Court Executive/Clerk of Court 18

19 March 27, 2017 20 21

s/ L. Dixon By Deputy Clerk

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 9

1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Puente Arizona, et al.,

No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Paul Penzone, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses.

16 Doc. 708. The motion is fully and extensively briefed, and no party has requested oral

17 argument. The Court will grant the motion in part.

18

A. Legal Standards.

19

A party requesting an award of attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses must

20 show that it is (a) eligible for an award, (b) entitled to an award, and (c) requesting a

21 reasonable amount of fees. See LRCiv 54.2(c). Under the general fee-shifting provision

22 for federal civil rights cases, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing

23 party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). “[A]

24 court’s discretion to deny fees under § 1988 is very narrow and . . . fee awards should be

25 the rule rather than the exception.” Herrington v. Cty. of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 743 (9th

26 Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).

27

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are prevailing parties in this case, but

28 they contend that the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ attorneys are in some cases too

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 9

1 high, the amount of time for which Plaintiffs seek compensation should be reduced, and

2 the overall fee award should be reduced because Plaintiffs did not succeed on all of their

3 claims. Plaintiffs provide a number of declarations in support of their fee request

4 (Docs. 708-1 to 708-15), and Defendants provide an extensive and detailed declaration by

5 attorney William Klain (Doc. 715-1).

6

To determine the reasonableness of requested attorneys’ fees, federal courts

7 generally use the “lodestar” method. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437

8 (1983); United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 755 (9th Cir.

9 2011). The Court must first determine the initial lodestar figure by taking a reasonable

10 hourly rate and multiplying it by the number of hours reasonably expended on the

11 litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. In determining whether the hourly rate or hours

12 expended are reasonable, the Court should consider the Kerr factors that have been

13 subsumed within the initial lodestar calculation. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.,

14 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975); Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 487

15 (9th Cir. 1988). These factors are: “(1) the novelty and complexity of the issues, (2) the

16 special skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality of representation, and (4) the

17 results obtained.” Jordan v. Multnomah Cty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 n.6 (9th Cir. 1987).

18

B. Lodestar Calculation.

19

1. Hourly Rates.

20

Reasonable hourly rates are not determined by the rates actually charged in a case,

21 but “by the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of

22 comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human

23 Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). The relevant community is generally the forum

24 in which the district court sits, Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454

25 (9th Cir. 2010), but “rates outside the forum may be used if local counsel was

26 unavailable, either because they are unwilling or unable to perform because they lack the

27 degree of experience, expertise, or specialization required to handle properly the case.”

28

- 2 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 9

1 Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barjon v.

2 Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997)).

3

Plaintiffs seek to recover out-of-state hourly rates for three sets of attorneys in this

4 case: the U.C. Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (“UCI IRC”), the National

5 Day Laborer Organizing Network (“NDLON”), and the law firm of Hadsell, Stormer &

6 Renick LLP (“HSR”). Plaintiffs seek to recover existing hourly rates for three sets of

7 Arizona lawyers: The ACLU Foundation of Arizona (“ACLU-AZ”), attorney Ray

8 Ybarra Maldonado, and the law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP (“QB”). Doc. 708 at 6.

9

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be limited to reasonable Arizona rates for

10 all lawyers because they have not shown that it was necessary to use out-of-state counsel.

11 Doc. 715 at 5-6. The Court does not agree. Plaintiffs have submitted persuasive

12 evidence that there were insufficient local counsel with the willingness and requisite

13 “degree of experience, expertise or specialization required to handle properly the case.”

14 Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (citing Barjon, 132 F.3d at 500). Daniel Pochoda, who served

15 as Legal Director of the ACLU-AZ for years and is familiar with the local legal market,

16 attests that there is a limited pool of civil rights attorneys who can handle a case like this.

17 Doc. 708-8 ¶¶ 3-5; see also Maldonado Decl., Doc. 708-9, ¶¶ 8-9 (judging that the only

18 option was to look outside Arizona and noting that some attorneys outside of Arizona

19 were unavailable to take the case); Garcia Decl., Doc. 95-2 ¶ 14 (explaining that Puente

20 had been looking for pro bono counsel to bring a challenge since 2013). Mr. Pochoda’s

21 difficulty in recruiting local firms as the case entered the discovery phase supports the

22 need to look outside the state. Doc. 708-8 ¶¶ 6-7. Mr. Klain notes that there are many

23 lawyers in the Phoenix area who do civil rights work, but he did not attempt to locate

24 lawyers or firms to take on this level of litigation against prominent county officials over

25 an extended period of time. Doc. 715-1 ¶¶ 16-19.

26

The Court will award the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ out-of-state counsel,

27 with two exceptions.

28

- 3 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 9

1

First, the Court will cap out-of-state attorneys’ fees at $750 per hour. The Court

2 concludes that this cap is reasonable given the fact that rates above this level represent

3 premium billing in large legal markets – a rate of pay not warranted for counsel who did

4 not take a leading role in this case. This will reduce fees for the HSR firm by $6,300 (see 5 Doc. 708-13 ¶ 19: $1,100 x 18 - $750 x 18 = $6,300).1

6

Second, the Court will also reduce the hourly rate charged for U.C. Irvine law

7 students from the requested $200 to $125. The Court views $125 per hour as more than

8 reasonable for law students who have not yet graduated from law school or passed the bar

9 exam. UCI IRC seeks to recover $56,050 for law student time. Doc. 708-6 ¶¶ 17, 25.

10 Reducing this amount by 37.5% (representing the percentage reduction from $200 to

11 $125 per hour) results in a reduction of $21,019 for fees sought by UCI IRC.

12

The Court will award Ms. Lai’s requested hourly rate of $565, despite Defendants’

13 argument that her time in practice is insufficient to justify such a rate. Ms. Lai acted as

14 the lead attorney in this case and managed the litigation effectively. The Court views her

15 hourly rate as comparable to rates charged by lawyers handling sophisticated litigation in

16 Southern California. Doc. 708-6 ¶¶ 3-11.

17

The Court will also accept the hourly rates charged by the Arizona attorneys:

18 ACLU-AZ, Ray Ybarra Maldonado, and QB. After reviewing the information provided

19 by these attorneys and Mr. Klain, and based on the Court’s familiarity with the Phoenix 20 legal market, the Court concludes that these hourly rates are reasonable.2

21

2. Compensable Hours.

22

Plaintiffs reduced the time for which they seek compensation to account for partial

23 success, duplication, and unnecessary work. Plaintiffs explained in their motion that they

24

25

1 Mr. Klain notes that attorney Barbara Hadsell at HSR bills at a rate of $975

26

(Doc. 715-1 ¶¶ 32-33), but HSR is not seeking compensation for her time (see Doc. 70813 ¶ 19).

27

2 The Court notes that Mr. Klain presents two options for reasonable hourly rates.

28

Option 1 would award QB and Mr. Maldonado their requested hourly rates and would reduce ACLU-AZ’s rates by only about 15%. Doc. 715-1¶ 54. Defendants view this

option as reasonable. See Doc. 715 at 8.

- 4 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 5 of 9

1 reduced several categories of time by 50% (Doc. 708 at 14-15) and some categories by

2 75% or more (id. at 16-17). Plaintiffs further explained that they eliminated excessive,

3 redundant, or otherwise unnecessary work (id. at 17-18), did not bill for more than one or

4 two attorneys at any hearing or deposition (id.), eliminated time for attorneys or law

5 students that had limited involvement in the case (id. at 18), and removed the “great

6 majority” of student time (id.). Defendants’ expert added all of the reductions apparent

7 from Plaintiffs’ declarations and concluded that they amounted to an overall reduction of

8 approximately 28%. Doc. 715-1 ¶ 57. But Plaintiffs explained in their reply that the

9 declarations submitted with their motion did not attempt to include all of the hours they

10 had eliminated, as discussed above, and that the total hours removed from their request

11 amounted to 49.3% of the total billed in this case. Doc. 725 at 17.

12

Defendants suggest that the Court make various additional reductions from

13 specific categories of Plaintiffs’ fees. Doc. 715 at 9-11. These proposed reductions are

14 based on Mr. Klain’s opinion that time billed for some activities was not reasonable, or

15 other alleged defects in billing. While the Court does not doubt Mr. Klain’s expertise,

16 and attorneys can have good faith disagreements as to how much time a task should take,

17 the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ requested hours are unreasonable. This was a

18 complex, difficult case. It involved substantial discovery, numerous motions, an appeal,

19 and complex constitutional issues, and resulted in a declaration that certain applications

20 of Arizona law were preempted and an injunction against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

21 Office (“MCSO”). Looking at some of the “reasonableness factors” identified by the

22 Ninth Circuit – the quality of representation and the complexity and novelty of the issues

23 presented – the Court does not find a basis for a further downward adjustment of hours.

24 Stanger v. China Elec. Motor, Inc., 812 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2016).

25

Looking at other reasonableness factors, however, including the benefit obtained

26 by Plaintiffs and the lack of success on much of the case, the Court concludes that an

27 additional downward adjustment of hours is warranted. Id. Plaintiffs lost on their facial

28 preemption claim before the Ninth Circuit, lost their equal protection claim before this

- 5 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 6 of 9

1 Court, withdrew their as-applied equal protection claim, lost their request for an

2 expungement remedy, and lost their request for an injunction against the Maricopa

3 County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”). Plaintiffs also lost on their argument that the

4 County bears Monell liability for the MCAO, and withdrew their class claims. On the

5 claim Plaintiffs did win – as-applied preemption – the Court adopted a scope of

6 preemption narrower than Plaintiffs had proposed.

7

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ lack of success warrants a more substantial

8 reduction than Plaintiffs have offered. Plaintiffs’ voluntary 49% reduction, which was

9 entirely warranted given the duplication of much of their work, the number of Plaintiffs’

10 lawyers that attended hearings, participated in conference calls, and attended depositions,

11 and the number of law student hours incurred in the U.C. Irvine clinical program – fails

12 sufficiently to account for the fact that Plaintiffs lost three of their four claims and

13 prevailed only partially on their fourth. As examples, Plaintiffs reduced their time

14 devoted to the preliminary injunction by 50%, even though they lost their preliminary

15 injunction on appeal. Doc. 708 at 14. Plaintiffs also retained 50% of the time they

16 devoted to an unsuccessful sanctions motion and 50% of the time spent unsuccessfully

17 seeking expungement. Id. at 15-16.

18

The Supreme Court has explained that, in accounting for partial success, “[t]he

19 district court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be eliminated, or it may

20 simply reduce the award to account for the limited success.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436-

21 37. Rather than attempting an hour-by-hour reduction for the many lawyers and law

22 students who worked on Plaintiffs’ case, the Court concludes that a further 25% reduction

23 in the compensable time for all lawyers and law students is required to accurately reflect

24 the mixed success of this case. This reduction constitutes the Court’s best judgment

25 regarding the effect Plaintiffs’ losses should have on the hours recovered.

26

Because the Court is making an across-the-board reduction, it need not calculate

27 the hours of each lawyer and law student and multiply those hours by the appropriate

28 hourly rate. For ease of calculation, the Court will simply make a 25% reduction in the

- 6 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 7 of 9

1 amount sought by each law group seeking compensation, after taking into account the

2 hourly rate reductions discussed above. The Court accordingly makes the following

3 lodestar calculation:

4

5 Firm
6 UCI IRC

Fee Request3 $672,454

Hourly Rate Adjustment Less $21,019

Lack-of-Success

Adjustment

Lodestar

Less 25%

$488,576

7 ACLU-AZ Maldonado
8 NDLON

$65,298 $14,561 $296,992

Less 25% Less 25% Less 25%

$48,974 $10,921 $222,744

9 HSR QB

$135,998 $196,668

10 Total Lodestar

Less $6,300

Less 25% Less 25%

$97,274 $147,501 $1,015,990

11

12

The Supreme Court has explained that a lodestar calculation “is more than a mere

13 ‘rough guess’ or initial approximation of the final award to be made. Instead, ‘[w]hen . . .

14 the applicant for a fee has carried his burden of showing that the claimed rate and number

15 of hours are reasonable, the resulting product is presumed to be the reasonable fee’ to

16 which counsel is entitled.” Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean

17 Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1986), supplemented by 483 U.S. 711 (1987) (emphasis in

18 original) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984).

19

The Court concludes that this fee award accurately reflects all of the relevant

20 factors, including relevant Kerr factors. This includes several factors argued by

Defendants. 21

For example, Defendants acknowledge that this case involved an issue of first 22
impression, but assert that Plaintiffs relied on discovery and rulings from other cases. 23
Doc. 715 at 19. But that often is true. The Court finds that the issues presented in this 24
case were novel and difficult, justifying a substantial fee. 25
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ counsel were not precluded from handling other 26
litigation by their involvement here (id.), but the Court does not view that as a basis for 27

28

3 This column includes Plaintiffs’ adjusted requests from their reply memorandum.

Doc. 725 at 25.

- 7 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 8 of 9

1 further reducing the hours they devoted to this case. They certainly were unable to work

2 on other mattes while they were working on this case.

3

Defendants suggest that further reductions are warranted by considering the

4 experience, reputation, and ability of Plaintiffs’ lawyers. Id. at 20. The Court does not

5 agree. Plaintiffs’ counsel were well qualified to handle this litigation and have been

6 involved in other high-profile civil rights litigation.

7

Defendants suggest that this case cannot be viewed as undesirable because the

8 statutory preemption provision made some success likely. Id. at 20-21. But Defendants

9 did not concede this point until after Plaintiffs brought suit, and contested the scope of

10 statutory preemption to the end.

11

Finally, Defendants argue that fee awards in other cases provide no basis for a

12 high award here. Id. at 21-22. But neither do they support reducing the fee further.

13

Considering Defendants’ arguments and all of the relevant Kerr factors, the Court

14 concludes that the lodestar amount calculated above represents an appropriate fee award.

15 This is a substantial award to be sure, but Plaintiffs obtained a significant victory, altering

16 the way MCAO and MCSO prosecute identity theft claims against unauthorized aliens

17 and clarifying the kinds of action preempted by federal law.

18

C. Other Issues.

19

The Court will deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ reply or file a sur-

20 reply and request for sanctions. Doc. 727. With the exception of the size of the

Plaintiffs’ own fee reduction – which was described in some detail in Plaintiffs’ motion 21

and supplemented only modestly in Plaintiffs’ reply – the Court has not considered the 22
reply arguments and declarations to which Defendants object. 23
The Court will not award fees or expenses against the State of Arizona. Plaintiffs 24
did not obtain relief against the State. Similarly, the Court will grant the State’s request 25
for relief from taxable costs. Doc. 726. 26
IT IS ORDERED: 27
1. Plaintiffs motion for fees and expenses (Doc. 708) is granted in part.

28 Plaintiffs are awarded $1,015,990 in attorneys’ fees and $20,532.08 in non-taxable

- 8 -

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 731 Filed 10/25/17 Page 9 of 9

1 expenses against the Maricopa County Attorney in his official capacity, the Maricopa

2 County Sheriff in his official capacity, and Maricopa County.

3

2. Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 727) is denied.

4

3. The State’s motion for relief from taxable costs (Doc. 726) is granted.

5

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

6

Dated this 25th day of October, 2017.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

 
 2017 WL 1133012 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
PUENTE ARIZONA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Joseph M ARPAIO, et al., Defendants.
No. CV-14-01356-PHX-DGC |
Signed 03/24/2017 |
Filed 03/27/2017
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anne Lai, Sameer M. Ashar, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, Cindy Panuco, Dan Stormer, Joshua Piovia-Scott, Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP, Pasadena, CA, Daniel Joseph Pochoda, ACLU, Kathleen E. Brody, Osborn Maledon PA, Edward John Bressler Hermes, Jose Alfredo Carrillo, Sarah Roshanne Anchors, Hector Joseph Diaz, Quarles & Brady LLP, Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado, Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Jessica Karp Bansal, Emilou MacLean, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Los Angeles, CA, Jessica Myers Vosburgh, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Hoover, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Douglas L. Irish, J. Kenneth Mangum, Thomas P. Liddy, Ann Thompson Uglietta, Maricopa County Attorneys Office, Michele Marie Iafrate, Renee Jeanette Waters, Iafrate & Associates, Brock Jason Heathcotte, Keith Joseph Miller, Dominic Emil Draye, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Michael M. Hethmon, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER
David G. Campbell, United States District Judge
*1 The Court previously determined that state prosecution of fraud in the I-9 process is preempted by federal law. Doc. 623. Because the Court’s definition of the preempted field was narrower than the field proposed by Plaintiffs in

their motion for summary judgment, and other issues remained regarding the appropriate remedy, the Court asked the parties to file supplemental memoranda. See Docs. 654, 672, 676. The Court heard oral arguments on March 9, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the Court will issue a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone. Readers are referred to the Court’s previous decisions for relevant background information. See, e.g., Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, No. CV-14-01356PHX-DGC, 2016 WL 6873294 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2016).
I. Standing. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claim because they have not established a case or controversy related to use limitation found in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5). That section provides that the federal I-9 form used to prove a prospective employee’s right to work in the United States, and any information contained in or appended to the form, “may not be used” for purposes other than enforcement of the federal employment verification system and prosecution under certain federal criminal statutes. This use limitation was the primary statutory provision on which the Court relied in finding that state prosecution of identity theft or forgery in the I-9 process is preempted. Doc. 623.
Defendants did not contest standing in their summary judgment briefs, despite arguing that federal preemption was limited to the express terms of § 1324a(b)(5). But the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to live cases or controversies, and objections to subject matter jurisdiction are not waivable. The Court therefore will consider Defendants’ arguments. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992); Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434-35 (2011).
The Court determined at the preliminary injunction stage that Plaintiffs had standing to bring this suit. Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833, 845-53 (D. Ariz. 2015). Standing, however, must be established by the appropriate level of proof at each stage of the litigation. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Although “the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed.” Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008) (citation omitted).
Defendants argue that “now that the Court has limited the scope of a potential injunction to the use limitation, none of the Plaintiffs can satisfy the constitutional minimum for standing.” Doc. 672 at 6. But Defendants’ contention
1

that Plaintiffs were deprived of standing by the Court’s narrowing of the preempted field is based on a misunderstanding of the standing requirement. To establish standing, “a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (emphasis added). A plaintiff need not prevail on the merits of its claim to establish standing; it merely must show an actual injury from the “challenged action of the defendant”—the conduct that the plaintiff claims to be unlawful. Even if the plaintiff ultimately fails to prove the challenged conduct unlawful, it has standing to obtain that judicial decision. The standing doctrine ensures that litigants “have a concrete stake” in the dispute, id. at 191, not that they will succeed in the dispute. Thus, the fact that Plaintiffs lost on a portion of their preemption claim does not mean that they lacked standing to bring that claim “when the suit was filed.” Davis, 554 U.S. at 734. Courts have made clear that “a plaintiff need not prevail on the merits before he can establish his standing to sue.” Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 212 (5th Cir. 2012).
*2 Plaintiffs challenged Defendants’ application of Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes to unauthorized aliens who commit fraud in obtaining employment. Doc. 191; Doc. 623 at 10. The challenged action included prosecution of undocumented aliens based not only on fraud committed in the I-9 process or to obtain employment, but also based on “any false communication made in the employment context in order to be consistent with the I-9 false identity, such as false tax forms, payroll forms, or applications for employment benefits.” Id. at 14. The relevant question is whether, when the case was filed, Plaintiffs could show the relevant injury from this “challenged action of the defendant[s].” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. For reasons stated in its earlier ruling, the Court again finds that Plaintiffs have shown sufficient injury from the conduct challenged in their complaint. See Puente Arizona, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 845-53.
Relying on the fact that “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought,” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ I-9 preemption claim, on which Plaintiffs prevailed, is separate from the broader preemption claim that gave them standing. Doc. 672 at 6-10. The Court does not agree. Plaintiffs made a single preemption claim in their complaint: “In enacting Section 1 of H.B. 2779 and Section 1 of H.B. 2745,

amending A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A), Arizona impermissibly intruded on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration, legislating in a field occupied by the federal government and imposing burdens and penalties on noncitizens not authorized by and contrary to federal law and policy, all in violation of the Supremacy Clause.” Doc. 191, ¶ 218. The Court cannot parse this claim as Defendants suggest, finding one claim based on fraud in the I-9 process and another based on other types of fraud. The fact that the scope of the preempted conduct was ultimately determined to be narrower than asserted in Plaintiffs’ complaint does not transform one claim into two.1
Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief. Doc. 672 at 6. This argument confuses the question of whether there is a justiciable case or controversy with the question of whether the evidence supports the injunction Plaintiffs now request. “Whether [a plaintiff] may ultimately be entitled to the requested injunctive relief is not the same question as whether [the plaintiff] has standing to seek injunctive relief.” Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson, 598 F. Supp. 2d 289, 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). It is true that a party attempting to establish standing to seek injunctive relief must satisfy the additional burden of showing that he “is likely to suffer future injury” absent the requested injunction. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105. But this additional burden does not change the fact that the question of standing focuses on the conduct challenged in the complaint. A plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief if he sufficiently alleges that he is likely to suffer a future injury which is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the injunctive relief sought. Id. at 311. The scope of injunctive relief warranted by the evidence is a separate question. Id.
*3 With these clarifications in mind, the Court again finds that Plaintiffs have standing. Defendants’ further arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above.
II. Mootness. Even if Plaintiffs have standing to proceed, Defendants argue that the election of new Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone and the 2014 written policy change by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) render the case moot. Doc. 672 at 8 n.5. The Court does not agree.
2

A. County Attorney. “A case might become moot if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. The heavy burden of persuading the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again lies with the party asserting mootness.” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. 167, 189 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). “The voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily render a case moot because a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed.” Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012). Voluntary cessation can moot Plaintiffs’ claims, however, if Defendants can meet the “stringent standard” identified above—absolute clarity that the wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2014).
On September 17, 2014—three months after Plaintiffs filed this case—County Attorney Bill Montgomery formally revised the MCAO’s written policy to prohibit reliance on the Form I-9 as evidence in trial or for charging purposes. Doc. 589, ¶ 74; Doc. 538 at 29. Defendants allege that this policy change is permanent and entrenched because MCAO promptly dismissed all pending cases based on the Form I-9 and has not filed identity theft or forgery charges based on a Form I-9 in the last 2.5 years. Doc. 672 at 15 (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000)). They emphasize that County Attorney Montgomery and his prosecutors are committed to upholding the law, and assert that there “is no evidence showing that they are likely to disregard their sworn duties as public officials, attorneys, prosecutors and officers of the court by charging future identity theft/forgery cases in knowing violation of the Form I-9 prohibition.” Id.
The Court does not doubt these assertions or the County Attorney’s dedication to the law, but the burden of establishing mootness is heavy. “[W]hile a statutory change is usually enough to render a case moot, an executive action that is not governed by any clear or codified procedures cannot moot a claim.” McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2015). Internal policies can be altered, even by successive administrations. Id.; Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 900 (9th Cir. 2013). While the Court does not question the good faith of Defendant Montgomery’s assurances of compliance, “promises to refrain from future violations, no matter how well meant, are not sufficient to establish mootness.” TRW, Inc. v. F.T.C., 647 F.2d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 1981).

*4 What is more, the 2014 policy only prohibits reliance on the Form I-9 itself, not on documents submitted with the Form I-9. Doc. 612-12 at 49-50. The policy also prohibits reliance on the Form I-9 only for trial and charging, not for other law enforcement purposes. Thus, the policy does not address all of the conduct preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court has made clear that a “case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Because MCAO’s 2014 policy affects only a portion of the conduct found unconstitutional by this Court, a permanent injunction would provide Plaintiffs with additional relief.2
B. Sheriff. The Court also finds that election of a new sheriff does not moot this case. An action against a public officer in his official capacity “does not abate” when the officer ceases to hold office while the action is pending; instead, “[t]he officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).3 A claim may become moot, however, if “a change in parties renders the need for an injunction against alleged future harm uncertain[.]” DuPree v. United States, 559 F.2d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Spomer v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 514, 522 (1974)).
Defendants rely on Spomer, a civil rights action alleging a pattern of purposeful racial discrimination by former Alexander County State’s Attorney Peyton Berbling. The plaintiffs brought suit against Berbling in his official capacity and sought injunctive relief. Spomer, 414 U.S. at 520. The district court dismissed a portion of the claim on qualified-immunity grounds. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed, and, while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Berbling’s successor (Spomer) took office and was substituted in the action. Id. Noting that “there may no longer be a controversy between respondents and any Alexander County State’s Attorney concerning injunctive relief to be applied in futuro, [the Supreme Court] remand[ed] to the Court of Appeals for a determination, in the first instance, of whether the former dispute regarding the availability of injunctive relief against the State’s Attorney is now moot[.]” Id. at 522. In doing so, the Court relied on the fact that the “wrongful conduct charged in the complaint is personal to Berbling, despite the fact that he was also sued in his then capacity as State’s Attorney.” Id. at 521.
After Spomer, the Ninth Circuit addressed the impact of a
3

change in administration on a court’s ability to grant relief. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 782 (9th Cir. 1985). Hoptowit did not address mootness, but considered whether a court must make “supplemental findings of fact indicating that the new officer will continue the practices of his predecessor” before granting injunctive relief. Id. The Ninth Circuit concluded that such findings were not necessary if “the continuation of the dispute is a reasonable inference.” Id. It further found that continuation of a dispute can reasonably be inferred if the dispute is based on “institutional practices” rather than “idiosyncratic abuses of the particular members of the outgoing administration.” Id. Thus, if the challenged conduct in this case arises from an established policy or a recurrent practice of MCSO officials, the case is not mooted by a change in sheriff. See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Inc. v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1346 (5th Cir. 1981).
*5 The Court cannot conclude that MCSO’s extensive practice of seizing and relying on Form I-9s and accompanying documents is simply an “idiosyncratic abuse[ ] of the particular members of the outgoing administration.” Hoptowit, 753 F.2d at 782. Although many of the factual allegations in this case focused on former Sheriff Arpaio and his statements, Plaintiffs also provided evidence of an established institutional policy. Over a period of several years, MCSO conducted over 80 workplace raids resulting in the arrest of over 800 employees. Doc. 520 at 59; Doc. 573, ¶ 80. MCSO regularly seized Form I-9s and accompanying documents during these raids, and submitted these to MCAO when referring cases for prosecution. Doc. 538 at 29; Doc. 573, ¶ 80; Doc. 525 at 12; Doc. 589 at 48. What is more, MCSO used state grant monies from the Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”) to fund the salaries of a specialized unit responsible for carrying out the workplace raids. Doc. 520, ¶ 52; Doc. 573, ¶ 52.
The evidence thus supports a conclusion that MCSO’s violation of the use limitation in § 1324a(b)(5) was a policy or practice, not merely the result of former Sheriff Arpaio’s personal conduct. Because the Court reasonably can infer that the dispute will continue under Sheriff Penzone, the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs’ claims against Sheriff Penzone are moot. Hoptowit, 753 F.2d at 782; see also Ciudadanos Unidos De San Juan v. Hidalgo Cty. Grand Jury Comm’rs, 622 F.2d 807, 822 (5th Cir. 1980). This conclusion is strengthened by the general unwillingness of courts to find a claim moot absent a clear indication “that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. 167, 189, and the fact that Sheriff Penzone has provided the Court with no declaration or other evidence suggesting that he intends to discontinue use of I-9 forms

and related documents.
III. Injunctive Relief.
A. Clarification of the Scope of Preemption. In its previous order, the Court found that Defendants are preempted “from using the Form I-9 and accompanying documents for investigations or prosecutions of violations of the Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes.” Doc. 623 at 2. Reviewing relevant statutory and regulatory language, legislative history, and other sources, the Court found that “Congress clearly and manifestly intended to preempt ... application of the Arizona identity theft and forgery statutes to unauthorized alien fraud committed in the I-9 process.” Id. at 28. The parties’ recent briefing makes clear that the Court must be more precise in defining the scope of this preemption. Doc. 654.
Congress’s most direct expression regarding the preemptive effect of the I-9 process is found in the use limitation of § 1324a(b)(5): “A form designated or established by the Attorney General under this subsection [the Form I-9,] and any information contained in or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5); Doc. 623. The question is whether Congress intended to preempt the use of items beyond those specifically mentioned in this use limitation—the Form I9 and information “contained in or appended to such form.” Plaintiffs argue that Congress intended to preempt the use of “information and documents submitted by workers as part of the I-9 verification process—even if not attached to the I-9 by employers or if separated by law enforcement from the I-9 in the course of an investigation[.]” Id. at 6. Plaintiffs also argue for a broad understanding of the word “use” to include reliance on the I-9 and related documents for any law enforcement purpose, not just to prove a crime in court. Id. at 12. To ensure compliance with this broadened preemptive intent, Plaintiffs would have the Court bar Defendants from even possessing I-9s or related documents in their files. Doc. 654 at 17.4
*6 Defendants argue that preemption is limited to the items specified in the use limitation—the I-9 and documents physically attached to it. Doc. 672 at 11. Defendants also argue that “use” means more than simply possessing the documents—that some affirmative action is required. Id. at 13.
If one were to look only to the language of § 1324a(b)(5), the scope of preemption could be narrowed to the Form I-
4

9 and documents physically attached to it. The use limitation refers only to the Form I-9 and “information contained in or appended to such form,” and append means “to attach,” “affix” or “add as a supplement or appendix.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 56 (10th ed. 2001). But other statutory provisions suggest that Congress had a broader intent.
Section 1 of the I-9 form requires a prospective employee to provide his or her name, address, date of birth, and social security number, and to swear under penalty of perjury that he or she is a citizen or national of the United States, a lawful permanent resident alien, or an alien authorized to work in the United States. In section 2 of the form, the employer must identify documents the employer reviewed to verify the employee’s identity and work authorization. The regulations identify specific documents, referred to as “List A” documents, that can be used by a prospective employee to show both identity and authorization to work. These include U.S. passports, permanent resident alien cards, or federal employment authorization documents. “List B” documents can be used to show identity, and include items such as driver’s licenses or state, federal, or school ID cards. “List C” documents can be used to show employment authorization, and include social security cards and other federally- or tribally-issued documents. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(v).
A prospective employee must show the employer either a List A document or a combination of List B and List C documents. While an employer is not required to attach copies of List A, B, or C documents to the Form I-9, he is required to examine them in order to verify that the individual is authorized to work in the United States. The employer then attests on the Form I-9 that he has made the verification. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(1)(A). Thus, prospective employees must present, and employers must examine, List A, B, or C documents in order to comply with the federal employment verification system.
Section 1324a(b)(4) permits an employer to make and retain copies of any documents presented by a prospective employee in the verification process, but makes clear that the copies can be maintained “only ... for the purpose of complying with” the verification system. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(4); see also 8 C.F.R. § 247a.2(b)(3). There is no requirement that the documents or copies be attached to the Form I-9, and, under the relevant regulations, copies may “be retained with the Form I-9 or stored with the employee’s records.” 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(3) (emphasis added). Thus, the statute and regulations contemplate that List A, B, and C documents used to satisfy the I-9 process need not be attached or appended to the I-9 form and need not be filed with the form, and yet also make clear that

copies retained by the employer may be used “only” for employment verification. This suggests that Congress intended to protect more than the I-9 and documents physically attached to it. The Court sees no logical reason why Congress would prohibit state law-enforcement officers from using the Form I-9 and documents physically attached to it, and yet permit them to use List A, B, and C documents submitted with I-9 simply because they were never stapled to the I-9 or were stored by the employer in a folder separate from the I-9. This is particularly true when one considers other statutory sections.
*7 Section 1324a(d) provides guidance for future variations of the federal employment verification system. It makes clear that even if the Form I-9 is replaced or new documentation requirements are created, the use limitation will continue to prohibit use of the employment verification system for non-enumerated purposes. The statute states that “[t]he system may not be used for law enforcement purposes, other than for enforcement of this chapter or sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(d)(2)(F); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1324(d)(2)(G) (prohibiting the use for non-enumerated purposes of any new document or card designed for the federal employment verification system). This suggests that Congress intended to bar the use of the verification process itself, not just the I-9 and physically attached documents, in state law enforcement. Additionally, § 1324(d)(2)(C) provides that “[a]ny personal information utilized by the system may not be made available to Government agencies, employers, and other persons except to the extent necessary to verify that an individual is not an unauthorized alien.” This limitation is not restricted to information contained in or appended to any specific document, but applies generally to the federal employment verification system.
Statutes imposing criminal, civil, and immigration penalties for fraud committed in the employment verification process also reflect a congressional intent to regulate more than the Form I-9 and physically attached documents. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) prohibits use of false documents “prescribed by statute or regulation ... as evidence of authorized ... employment in the United States.” As the Court noted in its previous order, this refers to List A and C documents—documents that may be used to show federal work authorization in the I-9 process. Doc. 623 at 15-16 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(v)). Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) provides criminal penalties for using false identification documents or false attestations in the I-9 process. These criminal provisions are not limited to documents attached to the Form I-9.
5

Similarly, 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(4) imposes civil penalties on individuals who “accept or receive or [ ] provide any document lawfully issued to or with respect to a person other than the possessor (including a deceased individual) for the purpose of complying with section 1324a(b)”—the statute that creates the federal employment verification process. Section 1324c(a)(4) also provides civil penalties for the making, using, or receiving of false documents or documents issued to another person in order to satisfy a requirement or receive a benefit under Chapter 12 of Title 8. These statutes include no requirement that the documents be attached to a Form I-9.
With respect to federal immigration penalties, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)(i) provides that “[a]ny alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.” The parallel provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(1) similarly states that “[a]ny alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.” These provisions impose immigration penalties on any fraud committed to demonstrate work authorization pursuant to the federal employment verification system established in § 1324a. This includes fraud in documents used to establish work authorization or identification, regardless of whether they are attached to a Form I-9.
These statutes make clear that Congress intended to regulate more than the use of the Form I-9 and physically attached documents. Congress specified that any future employment verification system could not be used for local law enforcement purposes. Congress imposed criminal, civil, and immigration penalties on fraud not only in the Form I-9 and physically attached documents, but also in other documents used to prove work authorization. The Court continues to hold the view that Congress did not intend to preempt state regulation of fraud outside the federal employment verification process, as stated in its summary judgment ruling. Doc. 623. But the Court concludes from the provisions reviewed above that Congress’s preemptive intent was not limited to the Form I-9 and physically attached documents. Congress also regulated—and intended to preempt state use of— other documents used to show employment authorization under the federal system. As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “field preemption can be inferred ... where there is a regulatory framework so pervasive ... that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1023 (internal quotation and brackets omitted); Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional

Law, § 6-31, at 1206-07 (same).
*8 This conclusion is supported by the legislative history of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which reflects Congress’s “[c]oncern ... that verification information could create a ‘paper trail’ resulting in the utilization of this information for the purpose of apprehending undocumented aliens.” H.R. Rep. 99682(III) (1986) at 8-9. If documents presented solely to comply with the federal employment verification system could be used for state law enforcement purposes so long as they were not physically attached to a Form I-9, this congressional intent easily would be undermined.
The Court’s conclusion is also supported by recent decisions from other courts. Reviewing the use limitation and several other provisions of § 1324a, the Supreme Court found that “Congress has made clear ... that any information employees submit to indicate their work status ‘may not be used’ for purposes other than prosecution under specified federal criminal statutes for fraud, perjury, and related conduct.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(b)(5), (d)(2)(F)-(G)) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion. United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 359 (9th Cir. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded (reviewing 8 U.S.C. § 1324a and finding that the federal employment verification system and any personal information it contains cannot be used for any non-enumerated purpose, including investigating and prosecuting violations of Arizona law).
In summary, the Court concludes that Congress clearly and manifestly intended to prohibit the use of the Form I9, documents attached to the Form I-9, and documents submitted as part of the I-9 employment verification process, whether attached to the form or not, for state law enforcement purposes. Further, as the Supreme Court found in Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228 (1993), the ordinary meaning of the term “use” is “ ‘to employ’ or ‘to derive service from.’ ” Id. at 229 (quoting Astor v. Merritt, 111 U.S. 202, 213 (1884)); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1681 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “use” as the “application or employment of something”). The Court will adopt this ordinary meaning of the word “use.” Thus, the Court holds that Defendants are preempted from (a) employing or relying on (b) any documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the federal employment verification process (d) for any investigative or prosecutorial purpose under the Arizona identify theft and forgery statutes. As Plaintiffs concede, Defendants may use List A, B, or C documents submitted in the I-9 process if they were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive
6

or as part of a typical employment application.
B. Irreparable Harm and Balance of Hardships. “An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010). In order to obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must satisfy four factors: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id. at 156-57. “The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
1. Harm.
*9 Plaintiffs must show that they face a “present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm” in order to obtain injunctive relief. Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 162. Although a defendant’s voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily render a claim concerning that conduct moot, it is “an important factor bearing on the question whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice.” City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) (noting that abandonment of challenged conduct does not deprive the court of power to resolve a claim concerning the challenge case, but provides relevant information on whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant injunctive relief); see also Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Jones, 192 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir. 1999).5
a. Likelihood of Harm Caused by MCAO.
Defendants argue that no injunction should be entered against Defendant Montgomery because Plaintiffs cannot show a present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm. They note that MCAO never had a written policy directing prosecutors to charge on the Form I-9, Defendant Montgomery has taken steps to ensure that MCAO prosecutors do not file Form I-9 charges, Montgomery and his prosecutors have “demonstrated compliance and responsiveness to this Court’s orders”

and are bound by sworn ethical and professional duties to uphold the law, and prosecutions are matters of public record subject to public scrutiny as well as judicial oversight. Doc. 672 at 15.
On September 17, 2014, Defendant Montgomery issued a policy prohibiting MCAO prosecutors from relying on the Form I-9 as evidence to establish any element of a crime or in charging decisions, and existing cases based on the Form I-9 were dismissed. Doc. 520, ¶ 83. The policy did not address reliance on other documents submitted in the I-9 process to show work authorization or identity. On March 8, 2017, MCAO issued a revised policy. Doc. 683. The revised version states that, “[f]or the purpose of reviewing Identity Theft and Forgery submittals, Federal I-9 Forms and documents appended to the Form I-9 may not be used and/or relied upon for establishing the elements of the offense and are not to be considered as admissible evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of conviction.” Doc. 683-1 at 8. As Defendants make clear, the appended documents referred to in this policy are only those which are “physically attached” to the Form I-9. Doc. 672 at 12. Further, the revised language does not prohibit all reliance on Form I-9 and appended documents. Rather, it focuses on evidentiary use and does not appear to prohibit use for other purposes such as interrogating suspects or obtaining warrants or subpoenas.
*10 Although the MCAO policy changes do not “address[ ] all of the objectionable” conduct identified by the Court, White, 227 F.3d at 1243, the Court finds that Defendant Montgomery has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of federal law. This fact is highly relevant in deciding whether Plaintiffs can make the showing required for injunctive relief. As one court has explained:
Cessation of the allegedly illegal conduct, though not rendering a claim moot, nevertheless may affect the ability to obtain injunctive relief, as by impacting the ability to show substantial and irreparable injury. The court retains the power to grant injunctive relief, but the moving party must still satisfy the court that injunctive relief is required. The necessary determination is that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive. In a situation such as this one, in which the challenged conduct has been
7

discontinued with a representation that at least part of the challenged conduct would be rescinded, the district court will have to determine whether injunctive relief is still appropriate, or whether only declaratory relief is available.
Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Jones, 192 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Given Defendant Montgomery’s genuine efforts to comply with federal law, the Court cannot find that Plaintiffs face a “present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm” from I-9 related investigations or prosecutions by the MCAO. Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 162. The Court will enter declaratory relief, and believes the MCAO will apply that declaration in fashioning a policy that will eliminate any risk of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
b. Likelihood of Harm Caused by MCSO.
The Court cannot reach the same conclusion with respect to the MCSO. The MCSO engaged in a years’ long practice of workplace investigations in which it regularly seized employment records, including Form I-9s. Doc. 623 at 12. The MCSO submitted Form I-9 and other documents from the I-9 process for charging purposes. Evidence in the record shows that the MCSO used the Form I-9 for investigatory purposes. See, e.g., Doc. 62116 (2012 report by MCSO regarding an interview with an employee suspected of committing employment-related identity theft or forgery, during which the employee was questioned about a seized Form I-9 on which he had provided a false social security number); Doc. 654-2 at 13 (MCSO Sergeant Brockman identifying a seized Form I-9 completed by Plaintiff Cervantes Arreola).
Defendants do not appear to dispute this finding. Rather, they argue that the practice was unique to Sheriff Arpaio. Doc. 672 at 16. Defendants note that Plaintiffs brought claims only against the MCSO despite the fact that 23 different law enforcement agencies submitted identity theft and forgery cases to MCAO between 2005 and 2015. Id. Defendants also argue that “Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot demonstrate that Sheriff Penzone will pursue the same policies and priorities” as Sheriff Arpaio. Id.
Defendants cite a Fifth Circuit case for the proposition that “a court may not exercise its equitable discretion to grant prospective injunctive relief against the successor[ ] [administration] without a strong factual basis apart from the mere allegations of the complaint for concluding that

they will continue the illegal practices of their predecessors.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Inc. v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1345 (5th Cir. 1981). The issue in Finch was whether a claim would be dismissed as moot following a change in administration. Id. It did not address whether a change in administration precludes injunctive relief. What is more, Finch seems to indicate that where there is a basis for finding that the “challenged activities were a matter of state policy or a recurrent practice of [state] officials, rather than idiosyncratic abuses of the particular members of the outgoing administration[,]” there exists a basis for concluding that the challenged activities are likely to continue under the new administration. Id. at 1346-47.
*11 Here, seizures of documents submitted in the Form I9 process were part of the sheriff’s office practice for seven years. Doc. 538 at 18-19, 28; Doc. 520, ¶ 59; Doc. 573, ¶ 59. Although the workplace investigations were ultimately abandoned in late 2014, over 80 such investigations were completed and resulted in the arrest of 806 employees who were almost all unauthorized aliens. Id. Moreover, the investigations and document seizures were carried out by MCSO employees, including a specialized unit organized to investigate violations of the employer sanctions law. Doc. 520, ¶ 94; Doc. 573, ¶ 94. This specialized unit was overseen by two different sergeants from the time it was created in 2008 until it was disbanded in 2015. Doc. 520, ¶ 95; Doc. 573, ¶ 95. Thus, although the challenged activities may have occurred under the administration of former Sheriff Arpaio, there is no doubt that they were part of a wider practice of MCSO employees.
Moreover, MCSO submitted the highest number of employment-related identity theft and forgery cases to MCAO. Doc. 623-2 at 19. According to Defendants’ expert, MCSO submitted 662 such cases, while the other 22 law enforcement agencies submitted a combined 692 cases. Id.
Even more relevant, the new sheriff has not provided any evidence regarding his planned policies with respect to identity theft and forgery investigations. Given the long and entrenched nature of the MCSO practice of relying on documents used in the Form I-9 process and the lack of any evidence of an intended change in policy, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement for injunctive relief against the MCSO.
c. Whether the Harm is Irreparable.
8

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown that their harm is irreparable. Doc. 672 at 16. More specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have:
an adequate remedy at law for any injuries to criminal defendants resulting from any future Form I-9 charges. If a line prosecutor errantly files a charge that violates the use limitation, the state criminal court can suppress the Form I-9 evidence and/or dismiss the charge. Criminal defendants can file direct appeals or petitions for postconviction relief. Habeas corpus petitions are also available. And defendants whose arrests or prosecutions violate clearly established law can pursue a civil claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Id.
The Court cannot conclude that a motion to suppress, or post-conviction relief, or even a later action under § 1983 will redress all of the harm caused when a person is arrested, indicted, and prosecuted on criminal charges. In Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that the availability of a defense at trial was an adequate legal remedy for a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 92 F.3d at 1501. The Ninth Circuit explained: “Because the Fourth Amendment establishes the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, however, the wrong that the Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent is completed when a motorcyclist is cited without probable cause.” Id. (alterations incorporated and quotation marks omitted); see also Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983).
Here, genuine harm occurs when individuals are arrested or charged with identity theft or forgery based on information submitted in the federal employment authorization process. Plaintiffs are further harmed when this information is used in an investigation that leads to prosecution, even if that prosecution ultimately fails or is not based on documents submitted in the I-9 process. The availability of suppression or post-conviction relief simply does not remedy the harm from apprehension, arrest, and a formal criminal charge. Indeed, there is generally no adequate legal remedy for an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. See SeretseKhama v. Ashcroft, 215 F. Supp. 2d 37, 53 & n.20 (D.D.C. 2002) (compiling cases saying the same). The

Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable harm against Puente members. As a result, the Court need not determine whether the taxpayer Plaintiffs or Puente as an organization independent of its members will suffer irreparable harm.
2. Balance of Hardships.
*12 In deciding whether to grant a permanent injunction, “courts must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief ... [and] should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987) (finding that the standards for a permanent injunction are “essentially the same” as for a preliminary injunction). The Court has already concluded that Defendants’ use of the Form I-9 and other documents submitted in the I-9 process to investigate and prosecute undocumented aliens is preempted by federal law. The government “cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice.” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, “[i]t is clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state to violate the requirements of federal law, especially when there are no adequate remedies available.” Valle del Sol, 732 F.3d at 1029 (quotation marks and citations omitted, alterations incorporated).
Although considerations of comity and federalism must factor into a court’s determination of whether to grant injunctive relief, O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499 (1974), comity does not prohibit a federal court from issuing an injunction affecting state law enforcement matters, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1237 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a plaintiff had standing to seek an injunction of state law enforcement matters where he demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of such relief); see also Easyriders, 92 F.3d at 1500. Rather, comity and federalism may properly be considered by ensuring that the scope of the injunctive relief is narrowly tailored to address the identified harm. See Clark v. Coye, 60 F.3d 600, 603-04 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only.”)
9

C. Scope of Injunction.
As stated, injunctive relief “must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged. An overbroad injunction is an abuse of discretion.” Lamb-Weston, 941 F.2d at 974. Injunctive relief “is historically ‘designed to deter, not punish[.]’ ” Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U.S. 49, 62 (1975) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendants from relying in investigations or prosecutions on the Form I-9 or any information or documents submitted solely in the I-9 verification process. Doc. 654 at 12-14, 16-17. Plaintiffs also seek the creation of a state-court presumption whereby any List A, B, or C document presented in an identity theft or forgery prosecution is presumed to have been submitted as part of the I-9 process unless MCSO can show that the I-9 does not mention the document, or there is evidence that the document was submitted for another purpose. Id. at 13. Plaintiffs ask for an additional presumption that “when the charges submitted for prosecution by MCSO include A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) for employment or A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3), and the other documents in the investigation file are not of the type that would be used to ‘obtain’ or ‘maintain’ employment—as opposed, for example, to selecting a tax withholding rate or opting in to a direct deposit program, MCSO should be presumed to have relied on any available I-9 or associated documents in its investigation.” Id. at 14. Finally, Plaintiffs request that the Court require its injunction to be circulated as soon as possible to all relevant personnel and be incorporated into formal written policies and regular training programs of the MCSO. Id. at 14, 17. To ensure compliance, Plaintiffs ask the Court to retain jurisdiction over the case for two years to provide guidance, resolve disputes, and, if necessary, exercise its contempt power. Id. at 18.
*13 Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is too broad. First, while it is correct that federal and state courts have created burden shifting mechanisms in the Fourth Amendment context, Plaintiffs identify no case in which a federal district court has created a presumption to be applied in state court criminal cases. See, e.g., Dubner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2001) (cited by Plaintiffs in support of their requested presumption); Reams v. City of Tucson, 701 P.2d 598, 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) (same). Even if the Court had such a power, its exercise in this case would constitute an unnecessary intrusion into the workings of state courts. State courts are fully capable of applying the preemption law established by this case.

Nor does the Court conclude that prolonged supervision or specified training is necessary. The Court will permanently enjoin MCSO from engaging in preempted action, and concludes that such an injunction is sufficient to afford the relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled. The terms of the permanent injunction will be set forth at the end of this order.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue injunctive relief jointly against MCSO and Defendant Maricopa County. The Court has found Maricopa County to be liable for the sheriff’s actions in this case. Doc. 623 at 40-41. This finding of Monell liability was based solely on the sheriff’s position as a final policy maker for Maricopa County, and Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that officers or employees of Maricopa County outside of the MCSO or MCAO have engaged in conduct causing Plaintiffs’ injuries. Nor does it appear that the Maricopa County board has authority to control the law enforcement policies or practices of the MCSO. See A.R.S §§ 11-251, 11-441(A)(1), (2); Hounshell v. White, 202 P.3d 466, 471 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). Because injunctive relief “must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged[,]” and Plaintiffs have not shown how an injunction against Maricopa County would remedy their injury, the Court will not grant injunctive relief against Maricopa County. Lamb-Weston, 941 F.2d at 974. Plaintiffs do not appear to seek injunctive relief against the State of Arizona. Doc. 654.
IV. Expungement. Plaintiffs seek expungement of the convictions of Plaintiffs Cervantes Arreola and Estrada Fernandez because “their convictions involved unconstitutional applications of [A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3)] in violation of the federal use limitations.” Doc. 654 at 19.
A request to expunge records of conviction is a request to “destroy or seal the records of the fact of the defendant’s conviction[.]” United States v. Crowell, 374 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2004). Expungement does not vacate, set aside, or otherwise affect the legality of the conviction. Id. “Accordingly, expungement, without more, does not alter the legality of the previous conviction and does not signify that the defendant was innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Congress has not expressly granted to the federal courts a general power to expunge criminal records.” Id. at 793. But the Ninth Circuit has identified “two sources of authority by which courts may expunge records of
10

criminal conviction: statutes and our inherent authority.” Id. at 792. Statutory authority is not at issue here, but “federal courts have inherent power to expunge criminal records when necessary to preserve basic legal rights.” Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 134 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting United States v. McMains, 540 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1976)). This power is “limited to expunging the record of an unlawful arrest or conviction, or to correcting a clerical error.” United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Expungement constitutes “a ‘narrow, extraordinary exception,’ one ‘appropriately used only in extreme circumstances.’ ” Crowell, 374 F.3d at 796 (quoting United States v. Smith, 940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)); Shipp, 568 F.2d at 134 n.1.
*14 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a defendant “cannot use a motion for expungement to make an ‘endrun’ around recognized post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus, coram nobis, and audita querela, or others [.]” Crowell, 374 F.3d at 796. As a result, a defendant “must first obtain a judgment that her conviction was unlawful” before seeking expungement. Id. This rule protects foundational principles, as “[t]he expungement of an accurate record of a valid arrest and conviction necessarily disrupts this balance of power and, in doing so, violates the principles of federalism upon which our system of government is founded.” Sumner, 226 F.3d at 1014.
Plaintiffs acknowledge the Crowell rule, but argue that it does not apply here because it involved a request to expunge records of a federal conviction, whereas Plaintiffs seek to expunge state convictions. Doc. 680 at 12-13 & n.13-14. Plaintiffs also emphasize that their request raises the issue of “the Court’s authority to expunge state convictions obtained in violation of constitutional rights under § 1983[,]” while the defendant in Crowell filed the motion directly in her criminal case and sought expungement “based solely on procedural deficiencies at trial.” Id. at 12 & n.14. The Court does not find these distinctions meaningful. First, considerations of federalism counsel the Court to exercise greater caution before disturbing a state court conviction. Second, the Crowell defendant, like Plaintiffs, alleged that her conviction was invalid because it violated her constitutional rights, and yet the Ninth Circuit declined to grant relief. Id. at 793 (alleging violations of Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights). Third, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that § 1983 is not the proper vehicle for challenging the validity of a conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994) (“Even a prisoner who has fully exhausted available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983 unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.”).

Citing Shipp, 568 F.2d 133, and Maurer v. Individually & as Members of Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 691 F.2d 434, 436 (9th Cir. 1982), Plaintiffs argue that there is “little question” that federal courts have the power to expunge state convictions obtained in violation of the Constitution in a § 1983 case. Doc. 680 at 12 & n.13. Neither case supports Plaintiffs’ assertion.
Shipp reversed a district court dismissal of a § 1983 claim seeking a declaration of invalidity and expungement of a Montana state burglary conviction. 568 F.2d at 133. The district court had dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and because it found the state court clerk immune from such an action. Id. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred because “federal courts have inherent power to expunge criminal records when necessary to preserve basic legal rights[,]” and immunity for state officials in the performance of judicial functions “does not extend to suits for injunctive relief.” Id. at 134. The case was remanded to the district court “for a determination of the question of expungement.” Id. While it does not appear that the plaintiff’s conviction had previously been found invalid, the Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion as to whether expungement was available. It did emphasize, however, that “[t]he power to order expungement of a state arrest record is a narrow one and should be reserved for unusual or extreme cases, for example, ‘where the arrest itself was an unlawful one, or where the arrest represented harassing action by the police, or where the statute under which the arrestee was prosecuted was itself unconstitutional.’ ” Id. at 134 n.1 (citation omitted).
*15 Maurer is a § 1983 case in which the plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration that his arrest by California state police was invalid on federal constitutional grounds and a permanent injunction prohibiting the dissemination of his arrest record. 691 F.2d at 435. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had “erred in summarily dismissing Maurer’s expungement action.” Id. at 437. Maurer cited Shipp for the proposition that “[i]t is well settled that the federal courts have inherent equitable power to order the expungement of local arrest records as an appropriate remedy in the wake of police action in violation of constitutional rights.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). The decision addressed only records of state arrests, and said nothing about expungement of state convictions. Maurer does not address whether a district court may expunge state conviction records that have not previously been vacated or otherwise determined invalid.
Plaintiffs also cite a 1967 Fifth Circuit case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1971. Doc. 768 at 12 n.13. The
11

Fifth Circuit found that state and local officials in Selma, Alabama had engaged in a pattern of baseless investigations, arrests, and prosecutions intended to interfere with the voting rights of African Americans, in violation of § 1971. United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734, 747 (5th Cir. 1967). Section 1971(b), now 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b), provides that “[n]o person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote[.]” In determining the proper remedy for the violation, McLeod noted that “[u]sually when a court directs the return of fines and the reversal or expungement of convictions, it is acting on direct review or sitting in habeas corpus rather than entering a statutory injunction. Yet we cannot permit the similarity of the remedy sought here to remedies traditionally reserved to other form of proceedings to deter us from fashioning effective relief under section 1971(c).” Id. The Court emphasized that “[s]ince section 1971 stands as a bulwark against harassing and coercive prosecutions, federal courts should construe it liberally to fulfill the protective aspect of American Federalism.” Id. at 748. Nothing in the opinion suggests that the court’s ability to expunge valid state convictions in a civil action extends beyond claims of voter suppression brought pursuant to § 1971. See also United States v. Tyler, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (discussing McLeod and concluding that the expungement power may only be exercised in very limited circumstances); United States v. Pichardo, No. 00 CR. 875, 2016 WL 4081136, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) (same).
Plaintiffs contend that the Court may expunge records of convictions under a facially unconstitutional statute, and argue that “[w]hether the statute [under which Plaintiffs were convicted] is unconstitutional in all applications or unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs and others like them should not matter.” Doc. 538 at 42 n.11. The Court disagrees. If a statute is facially unconstitutional, all convictions obtained under it are by necessity unconstitutional and invalid. Post-conviction relief proceedings are unnecessary. But if a statute is unconstitutional only in certain applications, only certain convictions obtained under that statute will be unconstitutional and invalid. The determination of which convictions are unconstitutional will generally require, as it would here, individual factual determinations.
This is evidenced by State v. Reynua, 807 N.W.2d 473 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), a case that addressed the same preemption issue presented here. The defendant in Reynua appealed a conviction for aggravated forgery and other crimes, arguing that “federal law preempts any state prosecution for conduct involving the I-9 form.” Id. at

478-79. The defendant’s convictions were based on the use of a false identity to obtain a forged Minnesota identification card, as well as the title certifications for two cars. Id. at 479. The false identification card had been obtained during a search of the defendant’s home. Id. A follow-up investigation led police to a Form I-9, which the defendant had completed with a false Social Security number. Id. The I-9 was submitted as evidence at trial, an act the State later conceded to be clear error. Id. The court of appeals found the error harmless, however, because the I-9 was submitted only as corroborating evidence. Id. The decision required a close inquiry into the charges, the evidence presented at trial, and the effect of various items of evidence on the outcome of the case.

*16 Reynua illustrates the kind of close record review required for a court to determine whether a conviction should be set aside on as-applied preemption grounds. The parties have not provided the Court with sufficient information regarding the convictions of Cervantes Arreola and Estrada Fernandez to conduct such a review, nor does the Court find that so close an examination of state convictions would be an appropriate exercise for a federal court, particularly when Plaintiffs Cervantes Arreola and Estrada Fernandez have made no efforts to have their convictions set aside in state court.

Plaintiffs argue that their failure to obtain invalidation of their convictions through post-conviction relief is excused under Ninth Circuit precedent. Doc. 606 at 25; Doc. 538 at 43. The Supreme Court held in Heck:

[I]n order to recover damages for

allegedly

unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for

other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, a §

1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been

reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such

determination, or called into

question by a federal court’s

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus,

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Thus, when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a § 1983 damages suit “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of an otherwise valid conviction or sentence, the court must dismiss the claim. Although Heck specifically addresses § 1983 suits for damages, the Supreme Court has made clear that the rule
12

applies to § 1983 claims for all types of relief. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred [under Heck] (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”) (emphasis in original); see also Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 847 (9th Cir. 2013).6
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs may not obtain expungement of their previous state court convictions. Expungement constitutes a narrow, extraordinary exception, appropriate only in extreme circumstances. Crowell, 374 F.3d at 796. Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to such unusual relief.7
V. Supplemental Filings. *17 Defendants assert in their reply that “MCSO submitted no more than four Form I-9 cases prior to 2013 and none since.” Doc. 672 at 9, 21 n.15. In support, Defendants cite to a document that is not in the record. They now attempt to supplement the record with nonelectronic documentation to support this assertion. Docs. 687, 688. But the Court ordered Defendants to file their reply by December 21, 2016. Doc. 623 at 423. Defendants do not offer any reason why they were unable to comply with the deadline established by the Court. Moreover, even if the supplementary materials can support Defendants’ assertion concerning the number of Form I-9 cases submitted by MCSO, the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that MCSO had a practice of violating the use limitation. The Court will deny Defendants motion to file a non-electronic form of its supplementary evidence (Doc. 688) and grant Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ supplement (Doc. 689).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is granted. The Court declares as follows: Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Defendants are preempted from (a) employing or relying on (b) the Form I-9 and any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the federal employment
Footnotes

verification process (d) for purposes of investigating or prosecuting violations of A.R.S. § 13-2002, A.R.S § 132008(A), or A.R.S § 13-2009(A)(3). This declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I-9 process if they were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment application.
2. Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is granted. Defendant Penzone, as Maricopa County Sheriff, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them, are permanently enjoined from (a) employing or relying on (b) the Form I9 and any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the federal employment verification process (d) for purposes of investigating or prosecuting violations of A.R.S. § 13-2002, A.R.S § 132008(A), or A.R.S § 13-2009(A)(3). This declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I-9 process if they were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment application. Defendant Penzone shall create a written policy for MCSO consistent with this permanent injunction and disseminate it within MCSO within 60 days of this order.
3. Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief against Defendants Montgomery and Maricopa County, and for expungement of the convictions of Plaintiffs Cervantes Arreola and Estrada Fernandez, are denied.
4. Defendants’ motion to file a non-electronic supplement (Doc. 688) is denied, and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Doc. 689) is granted.
5. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in accordance with this order.
All Citations
Slip Copy, 2017 WL 1133012

1

Defendants’ counsel emphasized during oral argument that they had always conceded that the use limitation in § 1324a(b)(5)

barred application of the Arizona statutes to fraud committed in the Form I-9, leaving no case or controversy. But the fact that

13

defendants did not contest part of Plaintiffs’ claim does not change the scope of the conduct Plaintiffs challenged—a scope broad enough to establish their standing to litigate this case. Moreover, as evidenced by the parties’ memoranda on remedies (Docs. 654, 672, 676), the parties still disagree on the scope of the use limitation and its preemptive effect.

2

As discussed below, Defendant Montgomery amended the MCAO policy shortly before the recent hearing on remedies, but this

amendment also is narrower than the scope of relief granted in this case.

3

The Advisory Committee Note to this rule state that automatic substitution of successor officers “will apply whenever effective

relief would call for corrective behavior by the one then having official status and power, rather than one who has lost that status

and power through ceasing to hold office.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) advisory committee’s note.

4

Plaintiffs would provide for an exception allowing Defendants to maintain a copy of the related documents if they could show

that the documents were submitted for reasons outside the I-9 process. Doc. 654 at 17. Additionally, “where a document

typically used in the I-9 process was not in fact the document submitted by the employee to show identity and/or employment

authorization, then MCAO may be permitted to retain a copy of the I-9 in the prosecutorial file for the sole purpose of showing

that the documents do not correspond.” Id. at 17 n.11.

5

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs must also show “a cognizable danger of a recurrent violation” before the Court may grant

injunctive relief. Doc. 672 at 14 (citing Fed. Election Comm’n v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1989)) (quotation marks

omitted). But this requirement, as quoted, does not appear in the cited opinion, and Furgatch was addressing whether an

injunction could be issued under 2 U.S.C. § 437g (now 52 U.S.C. § 30109) in response to violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act. Id. The court noted that “in cases involving statutes which give the courts the discretion to issue injunctions on the

basis of past violations, the federal courts have consistently held that the party moving for the injunction must show only that

there is a ‘likelihood’ of future violations.” Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1261. The Supreme Court has made clear that a finding of

irreparable harm in the common law injunctive relief analysis requires a showing of “present or imminent risk of likely irreparable

harm.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 162 (2010). Thus, the Court will consider the present or future risk of

irreparable harm without imposing a separate requirement of “a cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” Furgatch, 869 F.2d at

1260.

6

The Ninth Circuit has held that an individual may challenge a revocation of good time credits in a § 1983 action if the individual

has been released from incarceration and the opportunity to pursue habeas relief was not lost by the claimant’s own unjustified

delay. Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 877 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 705 (9th Cir. 2006).

But these cases emphasize that this exception to Heck “ ‘affects only former prisoners challenging loss of good-time credits,

revocation of parole or similar matters,’ not challenges to an underlying conviction.” Id. (quoting Nonnette, 316 F.3d at 878 n.7);

see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015).

7

Plaintiffs may attempt to obtain relief through Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f), A.R.S. § 13-907, a writ of audita querela, or some other

appropriate state-court avenue. Arizona Rule 32.1(g) allows for untimely petitions for relief if there has been a significant change

in the law, and, unlike federal habeas, Rule 32.1 does not have a custody requirement. The Court, of course, expresses no opinion

on the merits of such attempted.

14

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 1 of 70
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−01356−DGC

CLOSED,STD

Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 15−15211
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 15−15213
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 15−15215 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/18/2014 Date Terminated: 03/27/2017 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 950 Other Statutes: Constitutionality of State Statutes Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Puente Arizona

represented by Anne Lai University of California Irvine School of Law Immigrants Rights Clinic 401 E Peltrason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92697 949−824−9894 Fax: 949−824−0066 Email: alai@law.uci.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cindy Panuco Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 866−457−2590 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: cpanuco@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Stormer Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward John Bressler Hermes Quarles & Brady LLP − Phoenix, AZ One Renaissance Square 2 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−2391 602−229−5583

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 2 of 70
Fax: 602−229−5690 Email: edward.hermes@quarles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hector Joseph Diaz Quarles & Brady LLP 2 N Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004−2391 602−229−5274 Email: hector.diaz@quarles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal National Day Laborer Organizing Network 675 S Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2214 Fax: 213−380−2878 Email: jbansal@ndlon.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Alfredo Carrillo Quarles & Brady LLP − Phoenix, AZ One Renaissance Square 2 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−2391 602−229−5351 Fax: 602−420−5051 Email: jose.carrillo@quarles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Piovia−Scott Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 866−457−2590 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: jscott@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado Law Office of Ray A Ybarra Maldonado PLC 2700 N Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−910−4040 Fax: 602−910−4444 Email: ray@abogadoray.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Roshanne Anchors Quarles & Brady LLP − Phoenix, AZ One Renaissance Square 2 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−2391 602−229−5788 Fax: 602−420−5083 Email: sarah.anchors@quarles.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 3 of 70

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emilou MacLean National Day Laborer Organizing Network 675 S Park View St., Ste. B Los Angeles, CA 90057 213−380−2214 Email: emi@ndlon.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Myers Vosburgh National Day Laborer Organizing Network − Hoover, AL 2104 Chapel Hill Rd. Hoover, AL 35216 205−317−1481 Email: jvosburgh@ndlon.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua David R Bendor ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: jbendor@omlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Kathleen E Brody Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067−6379 602−640−9000 Fax: 602−640−9050 Email: kbrody@acluaz.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sameer M Ashar University of California Irvine School of Law Immigrants Rights Clinic 401 E Peltrason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92697 949−824−9868 Fax: 949−824−2808 Email: sashar@law.uci.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Susan E Frederick−Gray on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Anne Lai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cindy Panuco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 4 of 70

Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward John Bressler Hermes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector Joseph Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose Alfredo Carrillo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Roshanne Anchors (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola

represented by Anne Lai (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 5 of 70
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cindy Panuco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward John Bressler Hermes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hector Joseph Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Alfredo Carrillo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Roshanne Anchors (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 6 of 70

Plaintiff Guadalupe Arredondo TERMINATED: 01/16/2015
Plaintiff Russell Andrew Burnette on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Lai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015
Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne Lai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cindy Panuco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 7 of 70

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward John Bressler Hermes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector Joseph Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose Alfredo Carrillo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Roshanne Anchors (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Erin Tamayo on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Anne Lai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 8 of 70
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cindy Panuco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dan Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward John Bressler Hermes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hector Joseph Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Alfredo Carrillo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Roshanne Anchors (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 9 of 70

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez

represented by Anne Lai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cindy Panuco (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Stormer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward John Bressler Hermes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector Joseph Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jose Alfredo Carrillo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Piovia−Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Roshanne Anchors (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 10 of 70

Emilou MacLean (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015
Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer M Ashar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Joseph M Arpaio Sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 01/11/2017

represented by Ann Thompson Uglietta Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Civil Services Division 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8581 Email: uglietta@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Cazan Nelson Iafrate & Associates 649 N 2nd Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602−234−9775 Fax: 602−254−9733 Email: knelson@iafratelaw.com TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michele Marie Iafrate Iafrate & Associates 649 N 2nd Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602−234−9775 Fax: 602−234−9733 Email: miafrate@iafratelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Jeanette Waters Iafrate & Associates 649 N 2nd Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602−234−9775 Fax: 602−254−9733 Email: rwaters@iafratelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 11 of 70

Defendant Bill Montgomery Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity
Defendant Robert Halliday Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 08/07/2014
Defendant Maricopa, County of State of Arizona

represented by Douglas L Irish Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Div. of County Counsel 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8541 Email: irishd@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Kenneth Mangum Maricopa County Attorney's Office −Phoenix (Central Ave 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2206 602−506−8541 Email: mangumk@mcao.maricopa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas P Liddy Maricopa County Attorneys Office − Civil Services Division 222 N Central Ave., Ste. 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−8541 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov TERMINATED: 07/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ann Thompson Uglietta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by G Michael Tryon Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−8355 Fax: 602−364−2215 Email: michael.tryon@azag.gov TERMINATED: 08/27/2015
represented by Douglas L Irish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Kenneth Mangum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michele Marie Iafrate (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 12 of 70

Thomas P Liddy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ann Thompson Uglietta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Arizona, State of

represented by Ann Thompson Uglietta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brock Jason Heathcotte Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−5025 Email: brock.heathcotte@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith Joseph Miller Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−8594 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: keith.miller@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dominic Emil Draye Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−3333 Email: DOMINIC.DRAYE@AZAG.GOV ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

G Michael Tryon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Stephanie Susan Elliott Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−8555 Email: Stephanie.Elliott@azag.gov TERMINATED: 08/27/2015

Defendant
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

represented by Michael M Hethmon Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 330B Washington, DC 20001 202−232−5590 Fax: 202−464−3590 Email: mhethmon@irli.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 13 of 70

Defendant Paul Penzone Sheriff
Movant Immigration Reform Law Institute
Movant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

represented by Michele Marie Iafrate (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Jeanette Waters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael M Hethmon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael M Hethmon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/18/2014
06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/18/2014
06/18/2014
06/18/2014 06/18/2014 06/20/2014 06/26/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970−10575454 filed by Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola. (submitted by Anne Lai) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(KMG) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
2 SUMMONS Submitted by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (submitted by Anne Lai) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(KMG) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Puente Arizona. (submitted by Anne Lai) (KMG) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
4 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970−10575454. This case has been assigned to the Honorable David G. Campbell. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV−14−01356−PHX−DGC. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (KMG) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
5 Summons Issued as to Joseph M Arpaio, Robert Halliday, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(KMG). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 06/18/2014)
6 NOTICE re: Notice of Constitutional Challenge to A State Statute Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1)(B) by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona . (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
7 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Anne Lai on behalf of plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, and Puente Arizona. (BAS) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
8 ORDER. Motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/20/2014. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX147557 as to Anne Lai. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 06/26/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 14 of 70

06/26/2014
07/03/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/10/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/18/2014 07/25/2014 07/29/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014

9 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann Thompson Uglietta on behalf of Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
11 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Corporate Disclosure Statement, June 20, 2014 Order and Notice of Constitutional Challenge upon Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff on June 23, 2014. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
12 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Corporate Disclosure Statement, June 20, 2014 Order and Notice of Constitutional Challenge upon Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney on June 23, 2014. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
13 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Corporate Disclosure Statement, June 20, 2014 Order and Notice of Constitutional Challenge upon Maricopa County on June 23, 2014. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
14 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona: Affidavit of Process re: Summons, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Corporate Disclosure Statement, June 20, 2014 Order and Notice of Constitutional Challenge upon Robert Halliday, Director, Arizona Department of Public Safety on June 23, 2014. (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
15 STIPULATION Stipulated Motion to Extend Time for Fed. R.Civ. P. Rule 12(B) Motions and/or Responsive Pleadings (First Request) by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
16 NOTICE re: Notice of Compliance by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona re: 8 Order . (Pochoda, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
17 ORDER pursuant to 15 Stipulation: All Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before 8/15/2014. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/18/2014. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
18 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jessica Karp Bansal by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
Remark: as to attorney Sameer M Ashar − removed for noncompliance with admission procedures; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX148802 as to Jessica Karp Bansal. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
19 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 18 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 15 of 70

08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014
08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014
08/07/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014
08/08/2014

20 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Sameer M Ashar on behalf of Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, and Puente Arizona. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX148865 as to Sameer M Ashar. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
21 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 20 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
22 STIPULATION re Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) Amendment to Complaint by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola.(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
24 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 23 Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
25 *MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Brief/MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) *Modified to correct text on 8/8/2014* (REW). (Entered: 08/07/2014)
26 *FILED at 30 − LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support re: 25 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 2 Exhibit Index and Exhibits 1−6 to Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 3 Exhibits 7−16 to Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 4 Declaration of Carlos Garcia, # 5 Declaration of Nicolas De La Fuente, # 6 Declaration of Noemi Romero, # 7 Declaration of Sara Cervantes Arreola, # 8 Declaration of Rev. Susan E. Frederick−Gray, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) *Modified to correct text on 8/8/2014* (REW). (Entered: 08/07/2014)
27 MOTION for Leave to File Legislative Records in Non−Electronic Form by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) Modified on 8/8/2014 (REW). (Entered: 08/07/2014)
28 ORDER, the Stipulation 22 is granted; the Complaint shall be amended to substitute Robert Halliday, Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), with the State of Arizona as a defendant in this matter. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/8/14. (REW) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
29 ORDER, the motion to file brief in excess of page limits 25 is granted; the Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged as Doc. 26 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/8/14.(REW) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Pochoda Declaration, # 2 Attachment 1, # 3 Attachment 2, # 4 Garcia Declaration, # 5 De La Fuente Declaration, # 6 Romero Declaration, # 7 Arreola Declaration, # 8 Frederick−Gray Declaration)(REW) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
31 ORDER, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Legislative Records in Non−electronic Form 27 is granted; Plaintiffs may file with the Clerk the following audio/video

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 16 of 70

08/11/2014 08/12/2014
08/12/2014 08/12/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014 08/14/2014 08/14/2014 08/15/2014 08/15/2014 08/20/2014
08/20/2014

recordings, along with their certification letters, in non−electronic form: (1) House Government Committee Meeting, H.B. 2779 (February 20, 2007), (2) Senate Committee of the Whole Meeting and Third Reading of Bills, H.B. 2779 (May 23, 2007). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/8/14. (REW) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
32 * MOTION for Order Directing Plaintiffs to Provide a Red−Lined First Amended Complaint and Extending Time for Responsive Pleadings re: 23 Amended Complaint Request for Expedited Ruling by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele). * Added MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer on 8/12/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 08/11/2014)
33 * Joinder DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERYS JOINDER IN DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIOS MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO PROVIDE A RED−LINED COMPLAINT AND EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS DOC. # 32 by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage on 8/12/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 08/12/2014)
34 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − 1st Amended Complaint with Track Changes)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
35 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Lodging and Service of Certified Legislative Records by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona re: 31 Order on Motion for Leave to File . (Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
Disk: 2006 − HB2577 and 2007 − HB2779 received and stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
36 SUMMONS Submitted by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
37 Summons Issued as to Arizona, State of. (REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 08/14/2014)
38 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona: Acceptance of Service re: Summons and 1st Amended Complaint upon State of Arizona on August 14, 2014. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
39 ORDER finding as moot 32 Motion file a redline version of first amended complaint; granting 32 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Joseph M Arpaio answer due 8/26/2014. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/15/2014.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
40 ORDER re: 33 Joinder filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Maricopa, County of answer due 8/26/2014; Bill Montgomery answer due 8/26/2014. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/15/2014. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. # 30] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
42 * Joinder in Maricopa County and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's 33 Motion (Joinder) for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) * Modified to add document linkage on 8/21/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 08/20/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 17 of 70

08/21/2014 08/25/2014
08/26/2014 08/26/2014 08/26/2014
08/26/2014 08/26/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014

43 RESPONSE to Motion re: 41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. # 30] filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. # 30] DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. ## 30, 41] filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
45 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
46 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
47 * (Filed at Docs 55 and 56 ) LODGED Proposed LODGED: PROPOSED DEFRENDNATS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY'S AND MARICOPA COUNTY'S COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P 12 (B)(6) MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (F), JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ARPAIO'S MOTION TO DISMISS PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B) (1) DOC.#23). Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 9/10/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 08/26/2014)
48 * (Filed at Doc. 53 ) LODGED Proposed Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike re: 46 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) Modified on 9/10/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 08/26/2014)
49 Joinder re: 44 Reply to Response to Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. ## 30, 41] by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
50 STIPULATION re: 48 Lodged Proposed Document, 47 Lodged Proposed Document Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply Briefs for Defendants Arpaio, Montgomery and Maricopa County's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Motions by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
51 ORDER. Telephonic Conference set for 9/11/2014 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell to discuss briefing schedule for pending motion for preliminary injunction and motions to dismiss. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate a conference call to include all counsel and the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/10/2014. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
52 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged as Doc. 48 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/10/14. (LAD) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 18 of 70

09/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/11/2014 09/11/2014

53 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Strike (All Redundant, Immaterial or Impertinent Matter re 23 Amended Complaint) by Joseph M Arpaio. (LAD) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
54 ORDER granting 45 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 47 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/10/14. (LAD) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
55 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6), MOTION to Strike Certain Paragraphs of 23 First Amended Complaint by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Index and Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(LAD) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
56 Joinder re: 53 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Index and Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(LAD) (Same PDF as 55 , redocketed to reflect Joinder) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
57 * JOINDER re: 53 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tryon, G) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 9/11/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/11/2014)
58 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Conference held on 9/11/2014. ORDERED granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response due 9/26/14. Reply due 10/10/2014. FURTHER ORDERED granting 50 Stipulation Response/Reply Deadlines Re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint, 53 MOTION to Dismiss Case,MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 57 MOTION for Joinder re: 53 MOTION to Dismiss Case. Responses due 10/6/2014. Replies due 10/31/2014. Court will rule without oral argument unless otherwise ordered.

09/26/2014 09/26/2014
09/26/2014

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Anne Lai and Jessica Bansal for Plaintiffs. Telephonic appearance by Michele Iafrate for Defendant Joseph Arapio. Telephonic appearance by Ann Uglietta, Thomas Liddy,J Kenneth Mangum for Defendants Bill Montgomery and County of Maricopa. Telephone appearance by G Michael Tryon for Defendant State of Arizona.Motion Hearing re: Motion for preliminary injunction is set for 10/16/2014 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Court will set aside 2 hours for oral argument unless notified by the parties that evidence will be presented and additional time is needed. (Court Reporter Elva Cruz−Lauer.) Hearing held 1:31 PM to 2:03 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
59 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of for proceedings held on 9/11/14, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Tryon, G) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
60 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 12 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 14 to Declaration of Stephanie Elliott)(Tryon, G) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
61 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 19 of 70

09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014 09/26/2014
09/27/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014

Proposed Order)(Tryon, G) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
62 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
63 * (Filed at Doc. No. 69 ) LODGED Proposed Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction re: 62 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−5, A−H, 6−8)(Iafrate, Michele) Modified on 9/29/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/26/2014)
64 * MOTION for Leave to File DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct filer (removing Joseph M Arpaio as filer) on 9/29/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/26/2014)
65 * LODGED Proposed LODGED: DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY'S AND MARICOPA COUNTY'S (1) COMBINED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND (2) THEIR JOINDER IN DEFENDANT SHERIFF ARPAIO'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON THE BASIS OF LACK OF STANDING [DOC 26]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct filer (removing Joseph M. Arpaio as a filer) on 9/29/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/26/2014)
66 ** STRICKEN PER ORDER 73 ** Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 65 Lodged Proposed Document by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Part 4, # 6 Exhibit Part 5, # 7 Exhibit Part 6, # 8 Exhibit Part 7, # 9 Exhibit Part 8, # 10 Exhibit Part 9, # 11 Exhibit Part 10, # 12 Exhibit Part 11, # 13 Exhibit Part 12, # 14 Exhibit Part 13, # 15 Exhibit Part 14, # 16 Exhibit Part 15, # 17 Exhibit Part 16, # 18 Exhibit Part 17, # 19 Exhibit Part 18, # 20 Exhibit Part 19, # 21 Exhibit Part 20, # 22 Exhibit Part 21, # 23 Exhibit Part 22, # 24 Exhibit Part 23, # 25 Exhibit Part 24, # 26 Exhibit Part 25, # 27 Exhibit Part 26, # 28 Exhibit Part 27, # 29 Exhibit Part 28, # 30 Exhibit Part 29, # 31 Exhibit Part 30, # 32 Exhibit Part 31, # 33 Exhibit Part 32)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 9/30/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/27/2014)
67 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/29/2014.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
68 ORDER granting 62 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 63 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/29/14. (LAD) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
69 RESPONSE to 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) (LAD) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
70 *NOTICE of Errata DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS NOTICE OF ERRATTA AND MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF LODGED PROPOSED EXHIBIT 11 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS LODGED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. ## 65, 66−3] by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 9/30/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/29/2014)
71 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 70 Notice of Errata Proposed Order by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
72 MOTION Clarification re: 58 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Telephone Conference, Set/Reset Motion and R&R

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 20 of 70

09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014
10/01/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014 10/02/2014
10/03/2014

Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Stipulation, Common Prompts (Text Only), 60 Response in Opposition to Motion by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
73 ORDER − 1. Defendants' motion to exceed page limits (Doc. 64 ) is granted. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged as Doc. 65 . 2. Defendants' motion to supplement exhibits (Doc. 70 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court will not ask the Clerk's office to substitute exhibits in documents already filed with the Court. The Clerk is directed to strike Doc. 66 . Counsel for Defendants Maricopa County shall refile the exhibits in the correct order and form. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/30/14. (LAD) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
74 RESPONSE in Opposition to 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (LAD) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
75 Joinder in Defendant Sheriff Arpaio's 69 Response in Opposition to 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (LAD) (same PDF as 74 , redocketed to reflect filing of Joinder) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
76 * Additional Attachments to Main Document re: PER COURT ORDER [DOC. 73 ], RE−FILED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS (1) COMBINED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND (2) THEIR JOINDER IN DEFENDANT SHERIFF ARPAIOS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON THE BASIS OF LACK OF STANDING [DOC. 74 , 75 ] by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Part 4, # 6 Exhibit Part 5, # 7 Exhibit Part 6, # 8 Exhibit Part 7, # 9 Exhibit Part 8, # 10 Exhibit Part 9, # 11 Exhibit Part 10, # 12 Exhibit Part 11, # 13 Exhibit Part 12, # 14 Exhibit Part 13, # 15 Exhibit Part 14, # 16 Exhibit Part 15, # 17 Exhibit Part 16, # 18 Exhibit Part 17, # 19 Exhibit Part 18, # 20 Exhibit Part 19, # 21 Exhibit Part 20, # 22 Exhibit Part 21, # 23 Exhibit Part 22, # 24 Exhibit Part 23, # 25 Exhibit Part 24, # 26 Exhibit Part 25, # 27 Exhibit Part 26, # 28 Exhibit Part 27, # 29 Exhibit Part 28, # 30 Exhibit Part 29, # 31 Exhibit Part 30, # 32 Exhibit Part 31, # 33 Exhibit Part 32)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct document linkage on 10/2/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 09/30/2014)
77 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie Susan Elliott on behalf of Arizona, State of. (Elliott, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
78 RESPONSE to Motion re: 72 MOTION Clarification re: 58 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Telephone Conference, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Stipulation, Common Prompts (Text Only), 60 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Tryon, G) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
79 RESPONSE to Motion re: 72 MOTION Clarification re: 58 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Telephone Conference, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Stipulation, Common Prompts (Text Only), 60 Response in Opposition to Motion (Supplemental Response) filed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Tryon, G) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
80 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Conference − Briefing Schedule Proceedings held on 09/11/2014, before Judge Campbell. Court Reporter: Elva Cruz−Lauer. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/23/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/3/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/31/2014. (RAP) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
81 ORDER granting 72 Motion for Clarification. The Court's intent at the status conference on September 11, 2014, was that all defendants respond to the preliminary injunction motion by September 26, 2014, including the State. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10−3−14. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 10/03/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 21 of 70

10/06/2014 10/06/2014
10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/10/2014 10/10/2014 10/13/2014 10/13/2014 10/13/2014

82 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
83 * (Filed at Doc. 92 and 93 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Strike re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint, 53 MOTION to Dismiss CaseMOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint, 82 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Anne Lai)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 10/15/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/06/2014)
84 MOTION to Supplement DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT EVIDENTIARY RECORD RE: VICTIMS AND A.R.S.§ 13−2008(A) IN SUPPORT OF THEIR COMBINED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. ## 74, 76] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
85 * (Filed at Doc. 134 ) LODGED Proposed LODGED: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DEBORAH MACKENZIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY'S AND MARICOPA COUNTY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC ## 74, 76]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 1/5/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
86 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
87 * (Filed at Doc. 95 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Reply to Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction re: 86 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of Page Limit . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 2 Declaration of Carlos Garcia)(Bansal, Jessica) Modified on 10/15/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/10/2014)
88 * OBJECTION DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS LODGED EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFFS LODGED REPLY RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DOC. ## 30 , 87 , 87−1, 87−2] by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage on 10/14/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/13/2014)
89 * Joinder DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS JOINDER IN DEFENDANT STATE OF ARIZONAS AND DEFENDANT SHERIFF ARPAIOS EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS RE: HISTORY AND FACIAL VALIDITY OF STATE IDENTITY THEFT STATUTES IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DOC. ## 30 , 60 , 69 by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage on 10/14/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/13/2014)
90 Joinder re: 88 Objection to Plaintiffs' Lodged Exhibits Attached to Plaintiffs' Lodged Reply re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. ## 30, 87, 87−1, 87−2] by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 10/13/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 22 of 70

10/15/2014 10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/16/2014

91 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Courts docket as Doc. 83 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/15/14. (LAD) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
92 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE to 55 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint, 53 MOTION to Dismiss Case, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Strike 23 Amended Complaint filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anne Lai)(LAD) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
93 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE to 53 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anne Lai)(LAD) (same PDF as 92 , redocketed to use Response to Motion to Dismiss for Law of Jurisdiction event) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
94 ORDER granting 86 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 87 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/15/14. (LAD) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
95 CONSOLIDATED REPLY to Response to 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 2 Supplemental Declaration of Carlos Garcia)(LAD) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
96 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Motion Hearing held on 10/16/2014. Oral argument. ORDERED taking under advisement 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Court will issue an order.

10/17/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014
10/21/2014

APPEARANCES: Anne Lai, Jessica Bansal, Ray Maldonado, Daniel Pochoda, Joshua Bendor for Plaintiffs. Michael Tryon and Stephanie Elliott for Defendant State of Arizona. Michele Iafrate for Defendant Joseph Arpaio. Ann Uglietta, J Kenneth Mangum, and Douglas Irish for Defendant Bill Montgomery and County of Maricopa. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) Hearing held 12:59 PM to 3:11 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
97 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 10/16/2014, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Iafrate, Michele) Modified on 10/17/2014 (RAP). (Entered: 10/17/2014)
98 MOTION for Leave to File DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTION AS TO SCOPE OF 8 U.S.C. § 1324C FOR THE COURTS CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DEFENDANTS RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION THERETO [DOC. ## 26, 74, 87] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
99 * (Filed at Doc. 135 ) LODGED Proposed DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTION AS TO SCOPE OF 8 U.S.C. § 1324C FOR THE COURTS CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DEFENDANTS RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION THERETO [DOC. ## 26, 74, 87]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 1/5/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 10/20/2014)
100 RESPONSE to Motion re: 98 MOTION for Leave to File DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTION AS TO SCOPE OF 8 U.S.C. § 1324C FOR THE COURTS CONSIDERATION OF PLAI filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 10/21/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 23 of 70

10/21/2014
10/22/2014
10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/24/2014
10/27/2014 10/29/2014 10/29/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014
10/31/2014

101 * LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT − Joinder re: 99 Lodged Proposed Document Defendants Montgomery's & Maricopa County's Memorandum in Supplemental Response re MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Supplemental Response by Defendant Arizona, State of. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. (Tryon, G) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 10/22/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/21/2014)
102 * LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT − Joinder re: 99 Lodged Proposed Document Maricopa County and Montgomery's Memorandum in Supplemental Response to the Court's Question as to Scope of 8 USC 1324C for the Court's Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Inujunction and Defendants' Responses in Opposition Thereto [Doc. ## 26, 74, 87] by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 10/23/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/22/2014)
103 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Post−Argument Supplemental Declaration by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
104 * (Filed at Doc. 136 ) LODGED Proposed Second Supplemental Declaration of Carlos Garcia. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Bansal, Jessica) Modified on 1/5/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
105 * LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT − OBJECTION DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS LODGED SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CARLOS GARCIA RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. ## 26, 103, 104] by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 10/24/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/24/2014)
106 * LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT − Joinder re: 105 Objection Partial by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 10/28/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 10/27/2014)
107 Joinder re: 105 Objection to Plfs' Lodged 2nd Supp Decl of Carlos Garcia by Defendant Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
108 Joinder re: 56 Joinder (Partial) in Montgomery's and Maricopa County's Motion to Dismiss FAC by Defendant Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
109 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply Supporting His Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
110 *FILED at 116 − LODGED Proposed Defendant Arpaio's Reply Supporting His Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike re: 109 MOTION o Exceed Page Limit. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) *Modified to correct document number/link on 11/3/2014* (REW). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
111 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Preliminary Injunction Hearing Proceedings held on 10/16/2014, before Judge David G. Campbell. Court Reporter: Laurie A. Adams. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/21/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/1/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/29/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
112 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 24 of 70

10/31/2014
10/31/2014
11/03/2014 11/03/2014 11/03/2014 11/03/2014 11/03/2014 11/03/2014
11/03/2014 11/04/2014 11/05/2014

11/3/2014 (REW). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
113 *FILED at 118 − LODGED Proposed Document DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ; JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ARPAIOS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) [DOC. ## 23, 53, 55, 56]. re: 112 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to add document number/link on 11/3/2014* (REW). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
114 MOTION for Leave to File DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE DVDS AS EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO THEIR (LODGED) COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(F); JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ARPAIO'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) [DOC. ##23,53,55,56] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
115 ORDER, Defendant Joseph M Arpaio's motion to exceed page limits 109 is granted; the Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged at 110 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/3/14.(REW) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
116 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 53 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (REW) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
117 ORDER, Defendants' motion for leave to file excess pages 112 is granted; the Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged at 113 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/3/14.(REW) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
118 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike and JOINDER in 116 Defendant Arpaio's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(REW) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
119 ORDER, the motion to file exhibits in non−electronic format 114 is granted; Defendants may file Exhibit 1: April 7, 2007 A/V Recording Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing and Exhibit 2: June 20, 2007 A/V Recording Conference Committee Hearing in non−electric format. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/3/14. (REW) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
120 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF FILING DVDs AS EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(F); JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ARPAIOS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) [DOC. ## 23, 53, 55, 56] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
Non−Electronic Exhibits 1 & 2 to Doc #116−1 have been received and are stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
121 Joinder re: 118 Reply to Response to Motion regarding Sections I and III by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
122 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona for proceedings held on October 16, 2014 Preliminary Injunction Hearing Proceedings, Judge David G Campbell hearing

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 25 of 70

11/10/2014 11/10/2014
11/12/2014
11/12/2014
11/21/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014
12/10/2014 12/17/2014 12/17/2014 01/05/2015
01/05/2015 01/05/2015

judge(s). (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
124 * (Filed at Doc. 137 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Surreply to Defendant Arpaio's Reply and Defendants' Montgomery and Maricopa County's Reply in Support of Their Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Strike re: 123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) Modified on 1/5/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 11/10/2014)
125 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR−REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOC. ## 23, 53, 55, 56, 83, 116, 118, 123] filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
126 * NOTICE of Errata DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS AND MARICOPA COUNTYS NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: FOOTNOTE 1 CITED IN THEIR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. # 118 ] by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery.. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage on 11/12/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
127 MOTION to Strike 124 Lodged Proposed Document by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
128 ORDER. The parties shall file no further briefing on (Docs. 123 and 127 ). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12−1−14. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) Modified on 12/1/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 12/01/2014)
129 ORDER: December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum, not to exceed 10pages, which attaches one or more anonymous affidavits and addresses why they show standing in this case. December 17, 2014, Defendants shall file a joint memorandum, not to exceed ten pages, addressing Plaintiffs December 10th filing. No further memoranda will be filed without order of the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/1/2014. (TCA) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
130 MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs' Memorandum Addressing Court's December 1, 2014 Order and Supplemental Supporting Declarations 129 Order by Plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
131 NOTICE re: Disbandment of Criminal Employment Unit by Joseph M Arpaio . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover 1−3)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
132 MEMORANDUM Defendants' Joint Memorandum Regarding 129 Order by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
133 ORDER − 1. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30 ) is granted. Until further order of the Court, Defendants are enjoined from enforcing A.R.S. § 2009(A)(3) and the portion of A.R.S. § 13−2008(A) that addresses actions committed "with the intent to obtain or continue employment." 2. Defendants' motions to dismiss and strike (Docs. 53 , 55 , 127 ) are denied. 3. Parties' motions to supplement (Docs. 84 , 98 , 103 , 123 ) are granted. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/5/15. (LAD) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
134 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Deborah MacKenzie re: 74 Response in Opposition to Motion, 76 Additional Attachments to Main Document by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (LAD) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
135 * MEMORANDUM in Supplemental Response to the Court's Question as to the Scope of 8 U.S.C. Section 1324C for the Court's Consideration of Plaintiff's 30 Motion for

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 26 of 70

01/05/2015 01/05/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/20/2015
01/21/2015 02/02/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/04/2015
02/04/2015

Preliminary Injunction and 74 , 95 Responses in Opposition Thereton by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (LAD) * Modified to correct document linkage from 87 to 95 on 1/5/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 01/05/2015)
136 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Carlos Garcia re: 96 Court's Questions During Oral Argument by Plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (LAD) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
137 SURREPLY to 118 Reply to Response to Motion, 116 Reply to Response to Motion by Plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (LAD) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
138 ORDER. Rule 16 Case Management Conference set for 3/18/2015 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/15/2015. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
139 NOTICE of Party Dismissal by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. Party Guadalupe Arredondo terminated. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
140 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS ANSWERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. # 23]. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
141 * MOTION for Reconsideration re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Supplement, Order on Motion for Leave to File DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON ISSUE OF COUNTY LIABILITY (DOC. 133), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION TO ARIZONA SUPREME COURT by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Motion for Reconsideration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Certification)(Uglietta, Ann). * Added MOTION for Certification of Question to Arizona Supreme Court on 1/22/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 01/20/2015)
142 ORDER pursuant to 140 Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint: All Defendants shall file their answers to Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on or before 2/3/2015. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/21/2015. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
143 ANSWER to 23 Amended Complaint by Arizona, State of.(Tryon, G) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
144 ANSWER to 23 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Joseph M Arpaio.(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
145 ANSWER to 23 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand DEFENDANTS MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERYS ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. # 23] AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery.(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
146 * NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Supplement, Order on Motion for Leave to File by Arizona, State of. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11320027. (Tryon, G) * Modified to correct type of appeal event on 2/4/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 02/04/2015)
147 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Supplement, Order on

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 27 of 70

02/04/2015
02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/11/2015 02/23/2015
02/26/2015 03/06/2015
03/11/2015 03/11/2015 03/13/2015
03/13/2015

Motion for Leave to File by Joseph M Arpaio. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11320334. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
148 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Supplement, Order on Motion for Leave to File by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11320885. (Attachments: # 1 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
149 USCA Case Number re: 147 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Case number 15−15211, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (LAD) (Distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
150 USCA Case Number re: 146 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Case number 15−15213, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (LAD) (Distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
151 USCA Case Number re: 148 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Case number 15−15215, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (LAD) (Distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
152 ORDER of USCA consolidating the three appeals re: 148 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, 146 Notice of Appeal filed by Arizona, State of, 147 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (See document for further details). (LAD) (Distributed by the Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
153 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Arizona, State of for proceedings held on 10/16/14, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Tryon, G) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
154 ORDER. The County has filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court has reviewed. Doc. 141. Plaintiffs shall file a response to the motion, not to exceed 10 pages, by March 6, 2015. The County shall file a reply, not to exceed 7 pages, by March 13, 2015. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2−23−15. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
155 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua David R Bendor on behalf of Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Bendor, Joshua) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
156 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order o MOTION for Certification of Question to Arizona Supreme Court filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Bendor, Joshua) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
157 STIPULATION STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT [DOC. # 138] [FIRST REQUEST] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
158 ORDER pursuant to 157 Stipulation: Case Management Report due on or before 3/13/2015. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/11/2015. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
159 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 141 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order o MOTION for Certification of Question to Arizona Supreme Court filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Mangum, J) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
160 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/13/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 28 of 70

03/18/2015

161 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Scheduling Conference held on 3/18/2015. Discussion held. Parties to file a stipulation and Rule 502 proposed order. Deadlines discussed. Briefing schedule set for motion to amend and motion for class certification. Class certification hearing set for August 21, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Court will enter a case management order.

03/20/2015 03/24/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015
03/31/2015
04/01/2015
04/06/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015

APPEARANCES: Joshua Bendor, Anne Lai, and Ray Maldonado for Plaintiffs. G Michael Tryon and Stephanie Elliott for Defendant State of Arizona. Ann Uglietta and J Kenneth Mangum for Defendants Maricopa County and Bill Montgomery. Michele Iafrate for Defendant Joseph Arpaio. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 4:02 PM to 4:26 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
162 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 1/29/2016. Dispositive motions due by 5/20/2016.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/19/2015. (see order for additional deadlines)(TCA) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
163 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery for proceedings held on March 18, 2015 @ 4pm, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
164 ORDER denying 141 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 141 Motion reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/27/2015.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
166 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Scheduling Conference Proceedings held on 03/18/2015, before Judge David G. Campbell. (Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/20/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/30/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/29/2015. (RAP) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
165 *AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION APPEAL NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 148 Notice of Appeal as to 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, and 164 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to add document number on 3/31/2015 (LSP). (Entered: 03/31/2015)
167 *AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 133 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion to Supplement, Order on Motion for Leave to File, 164 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) *Modified to correct Appeal event on 4/24/2015* (REW). (Entered: 04/01/2015)
168 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jessica Myers Vosburgh on behalf of Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, and Puente Arizona. (BAS) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX157168 as to Jessica Myers Vosburgh. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
169 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 168 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 29 of 70

04/09/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/15/2015 04/16/2015 04/23/2015 04/27/2015 05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/06/2015 05/22/2015 05/22/2015 06/03/2015 06/17/2015
06/18/2015

170 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
171 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
172 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
173 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
174 STIPULATION by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Vosburgh, Jessica) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
175 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
176 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS by Jessica Karp Bansal. (Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 04/23/2015)
177 ORDER pursuant to 174 Stipulation: Order re non−waiver of privilege or protection pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/27/2015. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
178 MOTION for Leave to File to File Second Amended Complaint by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
179 * (Filed at 185 ) LODGED Proposed Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief re: 178 MOTION for Leave to File to File Second Amended Complaint . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) Modified on 7/13/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 05/01/2015)
180 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
181 RESPONSE to Motion re: 178 MOTION for Leave to File to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
182 Joinder re: 181 Response to Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 178) by Defendant Arizona, State of. (Elliott, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
183 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 178 MOTION for Leave to File to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
184 ORDER granting 178 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Although Defendants make plausible arguments regarding the futility of the proposed amendments, the Court concludes that it should not resolve those issues on the relatively limited record and briefing of the motion to amend. Such issues are better resolved in the more complete setting of summary judgment briefing and argument. Given Rule 15's liberal policy of allowing amendment and the timeliness of Plaintiffs' motion, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted, with the merits of the added allegations to be resolved with the other merits issues in this case. Plaintiffs shall file the proposed Second Amended Complaint within 7 days of this order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6−17−15. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
185 ** STRIKING CLASS ACTION FROM CAPTION AND STRIKING PARAGRAPHS 204−210 PER ORDER 205 ** AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against All Defendants filed by Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−7 to Complaint)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 8/11/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 06/18/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 30 of 70

06/25/2015 06/29/2015 07/01/2015 07/02/2015
07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/16/2015 07/16/2015 07/21/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015 07/24/2015

186 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
187 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Roshanne Anchors on behalf of Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
188 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice re Class Certification by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 162 Scheduling Order . (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
189 ORDER re: 188 Notice (Other) filed by Erin Tamayo, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Guadalupe Arredondo, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Puente Arizona, Russell Andrew Burnette. In light of the notice filed 188 , the class certification briefing schedule, and the class certification hearing set for August 21, 2015, are vacated. All other terms of the Case Management Order remain in effect. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/2/2015. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
190 NOTICE of Errata re: 185 Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
191 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against All Defendants filed by Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Erin Tamayo, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−7 to Complaint)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
192 ANSWER to 191 Amended Complaint by Arizona, State of.(Tryon, G) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
193 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Tryon, G) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
194 ANSWER to 191 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Joseph M Arpaio.(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
195 * ANSWER to 191 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand AND MOTION to Strike Class Action Allegations [DOC. # 191] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 7/24/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 07/24/2015)
196 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cindy Panuco on behalf of Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, and Erin Tamayo. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX161064 as to Cindy Panuco. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
197 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joshua Piovia−Scott on behalf of Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, and Erin Tamayo. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX161063 as to Joshua Piovia−Scott. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
198 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Dan Stormer on behalf of Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, and Erin Tamayo. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX161062 as to Dan Stormer. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 31 of 70

07/24/2015
08/03/2015 08/05/2015
08/05/2015 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015
08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/21/2015 08/21/2015
08/21/2015 08/21/2015
08/24/2015

199 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 196 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 197 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 198 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
200 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
201 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Non−Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Strike Class Allegations by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 192 Answer to Amended Complaint, 195 MOTION to Strike Class Action Allegations re 191 , 194 Answer to Amended Complaint . (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
202 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Brock Heathcotte; Keith J. Miller appearing for Arizona, State of. . (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
203 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Stay)(Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
204 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
205 ORDER granting 195 Motion to Strike class allegations. The language "class action" shall be stricken from the caption of the corrected second amended complaint and that paragraphs 204−210 shall be stricken from the corrected second amended complaint 191 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/10/2015. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
206 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tryon, G) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
207 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
208 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
209 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
210 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
211 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
212 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF VERIFICATION PAGE FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM MONTGOMERYS RESPONSES TO PUENTES FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
213 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
214 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Joshua Bendor by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bendor, Joshua) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
215 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 203 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 32 of 70

08/27/2015 08/27/2015 08/28/2015 08/31/2015 09/11/2015 09/22/2015
09/23/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 10/07/2015 10/13/2015 10/19/2015
10/21/2015 10/21/2015

216 ORDER − The 206 motion to withdraw is granted. Attorneys Michael Tryon and Stephanie Elliott are withdrawn as attorneys of record for Defendant State of Arizona in this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 08/27/2015. (ATD) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
217 ORDER − The 214 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is granted. Joshua Bendor shall be withdrawn as counsel of record for the Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 08/27/2015. (ATD) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
218 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
219 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 203 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
220 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
221 ORDER denying 203 Motion to Stay. Because the appeal of the Court's preliminary injunction ruling will not resolve all issues in this case, the Court will not stay the discovery or litigation schedule. The deadlines in the case management order (Doc. 162) remain in effect. Plaintiffs note that, with respect to written discovery, "Defendants have provided some responses, but mostly, have asserted objections or stated that they will, at some unspecified point, disclose the requested documents." Doc. 215 at 3. The Court reminds the parties of paragraph 4(d) of its case management order (Doc. 162) which prohibits at least some of these alleged practices. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9−22−15. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
222 NOTICE re: OF DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery MARICOPA COUNTYS AND MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS NOTICE OF DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE [Doc. 221]. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
223 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
224 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
225 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
226 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
227 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
228 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
229 * AMENDED DOCUMENT RE: 226 MARICOPA COUNTYS THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY AND ITS THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT MARICOPA COUNTY by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to correct event type and add document number on 10/20/2015 (KGM). (Entered: 10/19/2015)
230 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − R. Pearce Subpoena)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
231 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C: Subpoenas of Chief Clerk HOR, Senate Secretary, J. Kavanagh)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 33 of 70

10/29/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 11/03/2015
11/03/2015

232 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
233 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
234 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
235 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
236 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
237 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
238 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
239 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
240 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
241 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
242 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
243 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
244 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
245 STATUS REPORT PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
246 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Discovery Conference NOT held on 11/3/2015. Counsel for defendant Arpaio unable to join conference. Parties to confer and call the Court to reschedule the hearing.

11/03/2015 11/04/2015

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: Anne Lai, Ray Ybarra Maldonado, Sarah Anchors for Plaintiffs. Ann Uglietta for Defendant Bill Montgomery. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 3:37 PM to 3:42 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
247 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Amended Affidavit of Service on Kavanagh)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
248 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Discovery Conference held on 11/4/2015. Plaintiff issue: Defendant failed to produce documents and supplemental disclosures. Defendant response: Awaiting entry of protective order. Discussion held. Parties to submit a proposed protective order to the Court. Court will review and enter by Monday, November 9, 2015. Defendant Arpaio to produce the documents and supplemental disclosures by November 10, 2015. Upon production, parties to confer before calling the Court with unresolved disputes.

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Anne Lai, Sara Anchors for Plaintiffs. Telephonic appearance by Ann Uglietta for Defendant Maricopa County, Bill Montgomery. Telephonic appearance by Michele Iafrate for Defendant Joseph Arpaio. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 9:41 AM to 9:55 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 34 of 70

11/04/2015 11/04/2015 11/05/2015
11/05/2015 11/05/2015
11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015
11/11/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015
11/13/2015 11/13/2015

(Entered: 11/04/2015)
249 STIPULATION PARTIES JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
250 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 249 Joint Motion/ Stipulation for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/4/2015. (see order for details)(TCA) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
251 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Emilou MacLean on behalf of plaintiffs Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, and Erin Tamayo. (BAS) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX164761 as to Emilou MacLean. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
252 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 251 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
253 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
254 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
255 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
256 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
257 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
258 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
259 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery, filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
260 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Hermes, Edward) (Entered: 11/11/2015)
261 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re: Deposition of Maricopa County, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) *Modified to correct event type on 11/13/2015 (KGM). (Entered: 11/12/2015)
262 MOTION for Leave to Appear for Students Pursuant to LR Civ. 83.4 by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
263 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
264 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 35 of 70

11/16/2015
11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/18/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 11/23/2015 11/23/2015
11/24/2015 11/24/2015 11/25/2015 11/25/2015

265 SUPPLEMENT to Motion for Law Student Appearances Pursuant to L.R. Civ. 83.4 re: 262 MOTION for Leave to Appear for Students Pursuant to LR Civ. 83.4 by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
266 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
267 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
268 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
269 NOTICE of Deposition of Maricopa County, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
270 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
271 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
272 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
273 TRANSMITTED RECORD ON APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 147 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal ; Other: 3 DVDs and 1 Expando. (KGM) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
274 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F (Affidavits of Service))(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
275 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−2 (Affidavits of Service))(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
276 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
277 ORDER granting 262 Motion for Law Students Appearances Pursuant to L.R. Civ. 83.4. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/20/2015.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
278 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michale Meriwether Hethmon by Immigration Reform Law Institute, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (Hethmon, Michael) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
279 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 278 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michale Meriwether Hethmon filed by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Immigration Reform Law Institute. Pro Hac Vice motion submitted with state court certificate of good standing. FOLLOW−UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please resubmit motion with original certificates of good standing from a federal court. FOLLOW−UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please refile corrected document. Deficiency must be corrected within seven business days of this notice. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
280 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael Meriwether Hethmon by Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (Hethmon, Michael) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
281 NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph M. Arpaio, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
282 NOTICE re: Cancellation of Deposition of Maricopa County 30(b)(6) by Puente Arizona re: 269 Notice of Deposition . (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
283 *AMENDED by (Doc. 284 )−−NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) *Modified to add text and document number on 11/30/2015

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 36 of 70

11/25/2015 12/01/2015 12/01/2015
12/01/2015 12/03/2015 12/03/2015 12/04/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/08/2015 12/09/2015

(KGM). (Entered: 11/25/2015)
284 *AMENDED NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) *Modified to correct event type on 11/30/2015 (KGM). (Entered: 11/25/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX165658 as to Michael M Hethmon. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
285 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 terminating 278 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 280 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
286 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
287 NOTICE of Deposition of Sara Cervantes, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
288 NOTICE of Deposition of Carlos Garcia, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
289 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
290 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
291 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
292 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
293 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
294 NOTICE of Deposition of Elia Estrada Fernandez, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
295 NOTICE of Deposition of Authorized Designees of Plaintiff Puente Arizona, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
296 NOTICE of Deposition of Susan Frederick−Gary, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
297 NOTICE of Deposition of Erin Tamayo, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
298 NOTICE of Deposition of Russell Andrew Burnette, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
299 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
300 Joinder re: 295 Notice of Deposition by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
301 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 12/09/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 37 of 70

12/09/2015 12/09/2015 12/10/2015
12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/10/2015 12/11/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/16/2015 12/16/2015 12/16/2015 12/18/2015

302 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
303 NOTICE re: Service of Subpoena by Puente Arizona . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
304 NOTICE of Deposition of Authorized Designees of Plaintiff Puente Arizona, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
305 NOTICE of Deposition of Susan Frederick−Gray, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
306 NOTICE of Deposition of Erin Tamayo, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
307 NOTICE of Deposition of Russell Andrew Burnette, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
308 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
309 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
310 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
311 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
312 NOTICE of Deposition of Russell Burnette, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
313 NOTICE of Deposition of Susan Frederick−Gary, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
314 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
315 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
316 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
317 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
318 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
319 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
320 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Elia Estrada Fernandez. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
321 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
322 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
323 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
324 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 38 of 70

12/18/2015 12/23/2015
12/29/2015 12/29/2015 12/29/2015 12/30/2015 12/30/2015 12/30/2015 12/30/2015 12/30/2015 12/31/2015
12/31/2015 12/31/2015 01/04/2016 01/04/2016
01/04/2016 01/04/2016 01/04/2016 01/05/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/07/2016

325 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
326 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Erin Tamayo, and Elia Estrada Fernandez. (Panuco, Cindy) *Modified to add additional filers on 12/24/2015 (REK). (Entered: 12/23/2015)
327 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Hermes, Edward) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
328 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
329 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
330 NOTICE of Deposition of John Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
331 NOTICE of Deposition of John Doe II, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
332 NOTICE of Deposition of Jane Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
333 NOTICE of Deposition of Erin Tamayo, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Mangum, J) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
334 NOTICE of Deposition of Puente Arizona, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
335 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY MONTGOMERYS SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED CONFIDENTIALITY LOG DATED DECEMBER 31, 2015 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
336 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
337 NOTICE of Deposition of Noemi Romero, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/31/2015)
338 NOTICE of Deposition of Carlos Garcia, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
339 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
340 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
341 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
342 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
343 Joinder re: 334 Notice of Deposition 30(b)(6) of Plaintiff Puente Arizona by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
344 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
347 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Discovery Conference held on 1/6/2016. ( see entry for details) (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 4:12 PM to 4:49 PM.(TCA) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
345 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Commence Deposition by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 39 of 70

01/08/2016
01/08/2016 01/11/2016 01/11/2016 01/12/2016 01/13/2016 01/13/2016
01/13/2016 01/13/2016
01/14/2016 01/14/2016
01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016

Exhibit)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
346 IT IS ORDERED that the Discovery Conference presently set for 1/20/2016 at 10:00 AM is RESET AS TO TIME ONLY!! At the joint request of counsel, the Conference re Discovery is RESET for 1/20/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Ordered by Judge David G Campbell. (DGC, nvo)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
348 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
349 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
350 ORDER granting 345 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The deposition of William Montgomery may commence on 1/27/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/11/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
351 NOTICE of Deposition of William Montgomery, filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
352 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF MARICOPA COUNTY AND WILLIAM MONTGOMERYS SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS LOG DATED JANUARY 13, 2016 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
353 *FILED at Doc. 374 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendants' Joint Discovery Dispute Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if 354 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−5)(Iafrate, Michele) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 1/14/2016 (SCH). *Modified on 1/22/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 01/13/2016)
354 MOTION to Seal Document 353 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
355 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Doe Declarants and Other Issues by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Exhibit A−F, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
356 MOTION to Seal Document by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
357 *FILED at Doc. 375 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits B and D to Declaration of Emilou MacLean re: 356 MOTION to Seal Document . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) *Modified on 1/22/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 01/14/2016)
358 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
359 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
360 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
361 NOTICE re: of Service of MARICOPA COUNTY AND WILLIAM MONTGOMERYS SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS LOG DATED JANUARY 14, 2016 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery NOTICE OF SERVICE OF MARICOPA COUNTY AND WILLIAM MONTGOMERYS SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS LOG DATED JANUARY 14, 2016. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 40 of 70

01/14/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016
01/15/2016 01/15/2016 01/15/2016
01/20/2016

362 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Ybarra Maldonado, Ray) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
363 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Hermes, Edward) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
364 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Commence Deposition of Russell Pearce (Second Request) by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
365 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
366 *FILED at Doc. 376 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendants' Joint Reply re: 355 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Doe Declarants and Other Issues. Document to be filed by Clerk if 367 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−3)(Iafrate, Michele) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 1/19/2016 (SCH). *Modified on 1/22/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 01/15/2016)
367 MOTION to Seal Document 366 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
368 MOTION to Seal Document by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
369 *FILED at Doc. 377 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Discovery Dispute Brief. Document to be filed by Clerk if 368 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 1/19/2016 (SCH). *Modified on 1/22/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 01/15/2016)
370 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Discovery Conference held on 1/20/2016. Discussion held. Parties to submit a Matrix as discussed on the record by 1/29/2016. ORDERED finding as moot 364 Motion for Extension of Time deposition of Russell Pearce 364 . Extension of the case management deadlines discussed. Discovery due by 2/19/2016. Plaintiff expert disclosures due 3/4/16; defendant expert disclosures due 3/25/16; Rebuttal 4/15/16; Deposition 5/6/2016. Court will issue an order on the issues addressed at this conference.

01/21/2016 01/21/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016

APPEARANCES: Anne Lai, Jessica Vosburgh, Emilou MacLean, Cindy Panuco(telephonic) for Plaintiffs. Michele Iafrate for Defendant Joseph Arpaio. Ann Uglietta and Kenneth Mangum for Defendants Bill Montgomery and Maricopa County. Brock Heathcotte for defendant State of Arizona. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 11:01 AM to 2:58 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
371 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 01/20/2016, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
372 NOTICE of Appearance by Michele Marie Iafrate on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
373 ORDER granting/denying in part 355 Motion for Protective Order. FURTHER ORDERED granting 354 , 356 , 367 , and 368 Motions to Seal. The parties shall, within seven days of this order, file redacted copies of their memoranda in the public docket. FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 364 Motion for Extension of Time, in light of the adjustments to the litigation schedule set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/21/16.(MAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
374 Sealed Joint Discovery Dispute Brief by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 5)(MAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 41 of 70

01/22/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/25/2016 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 01/26/2016
01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/27/2016 01/28/2016
01/28/2016 01/28/2016

375 Sealed Exhibits B and D to 355 Declaration of Emilou MacLean by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C)(MAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
376 SEALED REPLY to Response to Motion re: 355 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Doe Declarants and Other Issues by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 3) (MAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
377 Sealed Reply to 374 Defendants' Discovery Dispute Brief by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (MAP) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
378 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo for proceedings held on January 20, 2016, Judge David G Campbell, Judge Discovery Conference hearing judge(s). (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
379 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
380 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
381 NOTICE re: Notice Re: Forgery Investigation by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery County Attorney Montgomery's Notice Re: Forgery Investigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
382 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
383 STIPULATION re: 337 Notice of Deposition of Noemi Romero by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
384 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
385 NOTICE of Deposition of Plaintiffs' Jane Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
386 NOTICE of Deposition of Plaintiffs' John Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
387 NOTICE of Deposition of Plaintiffs' John Doe II, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
388 NOTICE of Deposition of Sara Cervantes, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
389 NOTICE of Deposition of Carlos Garcia, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
390 NOTICE of Deposition of Elia Estrada Fernandez, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
391 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Law Student Pursuant to L.R. Civ. 83.4 by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
392 NOTICE re: Filing Defendants' Redacted Joint Discovery Brief and Exhibits by Joseph M Arpaio re: 373 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion for Protective Order . (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
393 BRIEF re: 392 Notice (Other) Redacted Joint Discovery by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−6)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/28/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 42 of 70

01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016 01/29/2016
01/29/2016
02/01/2016
02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/04/2016 02/05/2016

394 NOTICE of Deposition of Plaintiff Puente Arizona, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
395 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
396 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of DISCOVERY CONFERENCE proceedings held on 01/20/2016, before Judge David G. Campbell. (Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
397 MOTION to Seal Document Parties' Matrix Addressing Invocation of Amendment by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
398 FILED at 413 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Parties' Matrix Addressing Invocation of Fifth Amendment re: 397 MOTION to Seal Document Parties' Matrix Addressing Invocation of Amendment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Iafrate, Michele) Modified on 2/9/2016 (REW). (Entered: 01/29/2016)
399 NOTICE re: Filing of Redacted Copies of Exhibits B and D re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Joint Discovery Dispute Brief by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 375 Sealed Document, 377 Sealed Document . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
400 MOTION TO ADD PERSON WHO MAY SHARE CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY INFORMATION Defendant William Montgomery's and Maricopa County's Motion to Add Person Who May Share "Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Information" by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
401 ORDER pursuant to 383 Stipulation: Noemi Romero is removed as a witness, withdraw subpoena and notice of deposition 337 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/2/2016. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
402 ORDER granting 391 Motion for Law student to appear. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/2/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
403 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
404 NOTICE of Deposition of Jane Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
405 NOTICE of Deposition of John Doe I, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
406 NOTICE of Deposition of John Doe II, filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
407 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
408 ORDER. Telephonic Discovery Conference set for 2/9/2016 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Counsel for the parties shall discuss and initiate a conference call to include counsel for all parties and the court. Dial−in instructions shall be provided to the Court no later than 5:00 PM on 2/8/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/5/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/05/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 43 of 70

02/05/2016
02/08/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016
02/12/2016 02/12/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016 02/16/2016
02/16/2016

409 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 373 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of Court's January 22, 2016 Discovery Order by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
410 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
411 ORDER granting 400 Motion to add person for reviewing materials. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/9/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
412 ORDER, granting Defendant Joseph M Arpaio's 397 Motion to Seal Matrix Addressing Invocation of Fifth Amendment. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/9/16.(REW) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
413 Sealed Parties' Matrix Addressing Invocation of Fifth Amendment by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(REW) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
414 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Discovery Conference held on 2/9/2016. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 1:02 PM to 1:34 PM.(TCA) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
415 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
416 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
417 MOTION to Seal Document by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
418 *FILED at Doc. 424 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Full Transcripts of the Depositions of Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola and Elia Estrada Fernandez re: 417 MOTION to Seal Document . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) *Modified on 2/16/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 02/10/2016)
419 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
420 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
421 NOTICE re: Notice of Service of Defendant State of Arizona's Second Amended Privilege Log by Arizona, State of . (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
422 NOTICE of Deposition of Authorized Designees of Plaintiff Puente Arizona, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
423 ORDER granting 417 Motion to Seal Full Transcripts of the Depositions of Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola and Elia Estrada Fernandez. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/16/16. (MAP) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
424 Sealed Full Transcripts of the Depositions of Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola and Elia Estrada Fernandez by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition of Elia Estrada Fernandez) (MAP) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
425 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 44 of 70

02/17/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016
02/19/2016
02/24/2016

426 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
427 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re: Defendant State of Arizona's Third Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosure Statement by Arizona, State of . (Heathcotte, Brock) *Modified to correct event type on 2/22/2016 (EJA). (Entered: 02/19/2016)
428 MOTION to Seal Document Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and Partial Motion for Reconsideration by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
429 *FILED at Doc. 439 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and Partial Motion for Reconsideration of Court's January 22, 2016 Order regarding Discovery Dispute re: 428 MOTION to Seal Document Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and Partial Motion for Reconsideration. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) *Modified on 2/22/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 02/19/2016)
430 ORDER. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE set for 2/19/2016 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Counsel shall arrange for a dial−in number for all counsel and the court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
431 ORDER re discovery conference call of 1/20/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/19/2016. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
432 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
433 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
434 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
435 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
436 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF MARICOPA COUNTY AND WILLIAM MONTGOMERYS SUPPLEMENTAL/AMENDED CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS LOG DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2016 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Mangum, J) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
437 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
438 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone Conference held on 2/19/2016. ORDERED granting 428 Motion to Seal Document. Discovery extended to 3/4/2016. Dispositive motions extended to 6/3/2016. (see minute entry for details) (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 4:03 PM to 4:43 PM.(TCA) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
439 *SEALED JOINT RESPONSE to Motion re: 409 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 373 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration of Court's January 22, 2016 Discovery Order by Arizona, State of, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (MAP) *Modified on 2/22/2016 to correct file date (MAP)*. (Entered: 02/22/2016)
440 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 409 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants may ask which family members were supported as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Amended Complaint, but may not inquire into the immigration status of the Expungement Plaintiffs family members or other efforts of the Expungement Plaintiffs to obtain work.Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/24/2016.(TCA) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 45 of 70

02/26/2016 02/29/2016
03/01/2016
03/01/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/03/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 03/07/2016
03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/08/2016 03/09/2016

441 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cindy Panuco, # 2 Exhibits 1−32, # 3 Proposed Order)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
443 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM Certificate of Service to James Peterson, Esq. (Not on ECF Service List for this matter) by Plaintiff Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
444 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
445 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
446 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
447 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
448 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
449 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
450 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
451 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Mangum, J) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
452 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
453 ORDER. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Court's staff on March 4, 2016, and stated that they had just received some 8,000 pages of emails from Defendant Arpaio and needed more time to review them before completing the consultation required in the Court's order of February 19, 2016 (Doc. 438). The Court will require Plaintiffs' counsel to complete all consultations required by Doc. 438 by March 18, 2016. The Court will hold a telephone hearing, if necessary, on March 24, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. to discuss all outstanding discovery issues. The parties shall jointly notify the Court on March 21 whether such a hearing is needed. The remaining schedule set forth in Doc. 438 shall be extended two weeks to accommodate this unfortunate delay. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3−7−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
454 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney James F. Peterson by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
455 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Ramona R Cotca by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cotca, Ramona) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
456 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX169534 as to Ramona Raula Cotca. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 46 of 70

03/09/2016 03/09/2016
03/11/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016 03/15/2016
03/18/2016 03/21/2016 03/21/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016
03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/29/2016 04/01/2016 04/04/2016

this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX169533 as to James F Peterson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
457 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 454 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 455 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
458 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
459 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Elia Estrada Fernandez. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
460 *First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to 442 Motion to Compel (Stipulated) by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) Modified on 3/15/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 03/14/2016)
461 ORDER granting 460 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline as to 442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM. Oppositions due 3/24/2016. The Court will not grant further extension to this deadline absent truly extraordinary circumstances.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/15/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
462 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
463 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
464 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
465 NOTICE re: Notice of Service of Maricopa County and William Montgomery's Supplemental/Amended Confidential Documents Log Dated March 24, 2016 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
466 RESPONSE to Motion re: 442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM Response by Arizona Legislature to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. 442) filed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
467 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM filed by Russell Pearce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, James) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
468 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
469 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
470 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
471 NOTICE re: Notice of Intent to Issue Subpoena by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Uglietta, Ann)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 47 of 70

04/04/2016
04/15/2016
04/15/2016 04/20/2016
04/20/2016
04/22/2016 05/02/2016 05/05/2016 05/06/2016 05/12/2016 05/13/2016 05/16/2016 05/18/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016

(Entered: 04/04/2016)
472 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 442 MOTION to Compel RUSSELL PEARCE AND ARIZONA LEGISLATURE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM filed by Puente Arizona. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Panuco, Cindy) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
473 *MOTION for Extension of Time and REPORT re: Expert Disclosures by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to correct event type on 4/18/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 04/15/2016)
474 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
475 ORDER taking under advisement 473 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. The Court is confused by the parties' proposed order (Doc. 473−1). It appears to state that Defendants can, by May 27, 2016, provide rebuttal opinions to new affirmative opinions provided by Plaintiffs on June 1, 2016. The Court doubts Defendants can provide rebuttal opinions before they have seen the affirmative opinions. The parties should provide a clarifying filing as soon as possible. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4−20−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
476 STIPULATION Joint Clarification Re: Joint Request For Extensions of Remaining Case Management Deadlines [Doc. NOS. 473,473−1,475] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
477 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
478 ORDER granting 473 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline Dispositive motions due by 7/1/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/2/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
479 ORDER denying 442 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/5/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
480 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
481 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
482 NOTICE of Deposition of Dr. Jennifer Earl, filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
483 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
484 * NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct filers on 5/19/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 05/18/2016)
485 NOTICE re: Intent to Issue Subpoena by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Attachments: # 1 Attachments)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
486 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
487 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
488 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
489 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/19/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 48 of 70

05/20/2016 05/24/2016 05/26/2016
05/27/2016 05/27/2016
05/31/2016
05/31/2016
06/01/2016
06/01/2016 06/03/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/15/2016 06/16/2016 06/18/2016 06/21/2016
06/23/2016

490 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
491 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
492 NOTICE re: of Intent to Issue Subpoena by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena Duces Tecum and Appendix)(MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
493 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
494 NOTICE re: Intent to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoenas)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
495 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo: Acceptance of Service re: Subpoena Duces Tecum in a Civil Action and Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition upon Jennifer Earl on May 31, 2016. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
496 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo: Acceptance of Service re: Subpoena Duces Tecum in a Civil Action upon Thomas Elliot on May 31, 2016. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
497 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery: Acceptance of Service re: Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpeona to Testify at Deposition in a Civil Action upon Dr. Mark A. Cohen on June 1, 2016. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
498 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Puente Arizona. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
499 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
500 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
501 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
502 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
503 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
504 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Ray Anthony Ybarra Maldonado. (Ybarra Maldonado, Ray) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
505 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Russell Pearce, Puente Arizona. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 06/18/2016)
506 MANDATE of USCA, reversed in part, injunction vacated, dismissed in part and remanded with instructions; each party shall bear its own costs on appeal, re: 15−15211, 15−15213, 15−15215 146 , 147 , 148 , 165 , 167 Notices of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 Opinion, # 3 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(REW) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
507 APPEAL RECORD RETURNED: re: 146 , 147 , 148 , 165 , 167 Notices of Interlocutory Appeal ; Other: 3 DVS's in One Expando. (REW) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 49 of 70

06/28/2016 06/30/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/01/2016
07/01/2016
07/01/2016 07/01/2016

508 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order To Exceed Page Limit)(Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
509 ORDER granting 508 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant State of Arizona may file a motion up to 28 pages long. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/30/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
510 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
511 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Monell Issue by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Mangum, J) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
512 *STATEMENT OF FACTS in Support of 510 Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−4, # 2 Exhibit 5−7, # 3 Exhibit 8−11, # 4 Exhibit 12−14)(Heathcotte, Brock) *Modified to add document number on 7/5/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
513 *Joinder re: 510 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Mangum, J) *Modified to reflect document is same as document docketed at Doc. 511 on 7/5/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
514 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Motion For Leave To File Brief In Excess of LRCIV 7.2(e) Page Limits Re: Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Motion For Summary Judgment On All Claims And All Requests For Relief And His Joinder in Defendant State Of Arizona's Motion For Summary Judgment On Facial Supremacy Clause Claim And Facial Equal Protection Clause Claim by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
515 *Filed at (Doc. 534 ) pursuant to 533 Order−−LODGED Proposed Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(A) Motion For Summary Judgment On All Claims And All Requests For Relief and His Joinder In Defendant State Of Arizona's Motion For Summary Judgment On Facial Supremacy Clause Claim and Facial Equal Protection Clause Claim. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 7/5/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
516 MOTION to Seal Document Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's LRCiv. 5.6(c) Motion to File Under Seal: Defendant Maricopa County Attorney's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support Of His FED. R. Civ.P. 56(A) Motion For Summary Judgment On All Claims And All Requests For Relief by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
517 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
518 SEALED LODGED Proposed Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support Of His Fed.R. Civ. P. 56(A) Motion for Summary of Judgment On All Claims And All Requests for Relief re: 516 Motion to Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exhibit, # 48 Exhibit, # 49 Exhibit, # 50 Exhibit, # 51 Exhibit, # 52 Exhibit, # 53 Exhibit, # 54 Exhibit, # 55 Exhibit, # 56 Exhibit, # 57 Exhibit, # 58 Exhibit, # 59 Exhibit, # 60 Exhibit, # 61 Exhibit, # 62 Exhibit, # 63 Exhibit, # 64 Exhibit, # 65 Exhibit, # 66 Exhibit, # 67 Exhibit, # 68 Exhibit, # 69 Exhibit, # 70 Exhibit, # 71 Exhibit, # 72 Exhibit, # 73 Exhibit, # 74 Exhibit, # 75 Exhibit, # 76 Exhibit, # 77 Exhibit, # 78 Exhibit, # 79 Exhibit, # 80 Exhibit, # 81 Exhibit, # 82

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 50 of 70

07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/01/2016

Exhibit, # 83 Exhibit, # 84 Exhibit, # 85 Exhibit, # 86 Exhibit, # 87 Exhibit, # 88 Exhibit, # 89 Exhibit, # 90 Exhibit, # 91 Exhibit, # 92 Exhibit, # 93 Exhibit, # 94 Exhibit, # 95 Exhibit, # 96 Exhibit, # 97 Exhibit, # 98 Exhibit, # 99 Exhibit, # 100 Exhibit, # 101 Exhibit, # 102 Exhibit, # 103 Exhibit, # 104 Exhibit, # 105 Exhibit, # 106 Exhibit, # 107 Exhibit, # 108 Exhibit, # 109 Exhibit, # 110 Exhibit, # 111 Exhibit, # 112 Exhibit, # 113 Exhibit, # 114 Exhibit, # 115 Exhibit, # 116 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to add link to motion to seal on 7/5/2016 (CEI). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
519 *Filed at (Doc. 538 ) pursuant to 537 Order−−LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support re: 517 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) *Modified restriction from sealed to public per JA on 7/5/2016 (CEI). Modified on 7/6/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
520 * (Filed at Doc. 621 ) LODGED Proposed Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motioni for Partial Summary Judgment re: 517 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Anne Lai, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1−10, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 11−20, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 21−33, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 34−50, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 51−58, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 59 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 59 Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 59 Par 3 − 71, # 10 Exhibit Exhibits 72−87, # 11 Exhibit Exhibits 88−90, # 12 Exhibit Exhibits 91−95, # 13 Exhibit Exhibits 96−99, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 100, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 101−110, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 111−123, # 17 Exhibit Exhibits 124−127, # 18 Exhibit Exhibits 128−142, # 19 Exhibit Exhibits 143−153, # 20 Exhibit Exhibits 154−162, # 21 Exhibit Earl Declaration, # 22 Exhibit Garcia Declaration, # 23 Exhibit Abudenz Declaration, # 24 Exhibit Villanueva Declaration, # 25 Exhibit Jane Doe I Declaration, # 26 Exhibit John Doe I Declaration, # 27 Exhibit John Doe II Declaration, # 28 Exhibit Gray Declaration, # 29 Exhibit Burnett Declaration, # 30 Exhibit Tamayo Declaration, # 31 Exhibit Higgins Declaration)(Lai, Anne) *Modified restriction from sealed to public per JA; added link to Motion for Leave to file on 7/5/2016 (CEI). Modified on 11/22/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
521 *MOTION to Seal Document and Notice of Lodging Under Seal by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) *Modified to correct document links and text on 7/5/2016 (CEI). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
522 SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment −Unredacted re: 521 Motion to Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) *Modified to add link to Motion to Seal on 7/5/2016 (CEI). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
523 SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: 521 Motion to Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 38, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 48, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 49, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 53, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 64, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 70, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 71, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 73, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 76, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 84, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 85, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 86, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 87, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 91, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 113, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 131, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 136, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 139, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 140, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 141, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit155, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 159, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit A to Earl Declaration)(Lai, Anne) *Modified to add link to motion to seal on 7/5/2016 (CEI). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
524 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Records in Non−Electronic Form by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 51 of 70

07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/01/2016 07/01/2016
07/01/2016
07/05/2016 07/05/2016 07/05/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016

Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
525 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
526 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 525 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−17)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
527 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits 9, 11, 14 and 15 to Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
528 *FILED at Doc. 536 * SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 9, 11, 14 and 15 to Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment re: 527 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits 9, 11, 14 and 15 to Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) *Modified on 7/6/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 07/01/2016)
529 MOTION for Sanctions by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
530 MOTION to Seal Document Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits A, B, F, G and H to Anchors Declaration by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
531 *FILED at Doc. 565 −SEALED LODGED Proposed Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits A, B, F, G and H to Anchors Declaration re: 530 MOTION to Seal Document Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits A, B, F, G and H to Anchors Declaration. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 8/10/2016 (MAP). (Entered: 07/01/2016)
532 NOTICE of Errata re: 520 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−10)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
533 ORDER granting 514 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shallaccept for filing Defendants' motion lodged as Doc. 515 on the Courts docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/5/16.(KGM) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
534 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Joinder by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (KGM) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
535 ORDER granting 527 Motion to Seal Exhibits 9, 11, 14, and 15 to Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/5/16.(MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
536 Sealed Exhibits 9, 11, 14 and 15 to 526 Statement of Facts in Support of 525 Motion for Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
537 ORDER granting 517 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file a 34−page Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 519 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/5/16.(KGM) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
538 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 52 of 70

07/06/2016
07/06/2016
07/07/2016 07/07/2016 07/07/2016 07/07/2016 07/08/2016 07/08/2016 07/08/2016 07/08/2016 07/12/2016

Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (KGM) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
539 ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file records in non−electronic format (Doc. 524 ) is granted. The Clerk shall accept for filing the following audio/video recordings, along with their certification letters (where applicable), in non− electronic form House Government Committee Hearing, H.B. 2779 (February 20, 2007); Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing, H.B. 2779 (April 3, 2007); Senate Committee of the Whole Hearing and Third Reading of Bills, H.B. 2779 (May 23, 2007); PUENTE P 000027, Exhibit 140 to the Deposition of Joseph M. Arpaio (recording of MN Tea Party Special Event, March 6, 2014). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/5/16.(KGM) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
540 ORDER. Defendant Montgomery and Plaintiffs have filed motions seeking permission to file their statements of fact under seal. Docs. 516, 521. The statements exceed the 10−page limit established in the Court's Case Management Order (Doc. 162), and these parties do not request permission to exceed this limit and provide no explanation of why statements of more than 30 pages and 40 pages, respectively, are needed. These parties shall file memoranda within 3 working days of this order explaining why the 10−page limit should be exceeded for their statements. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7−6−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
541 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Statement of Facts in Excess of Page Limits by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
542 STIPULATION Motion to Extend Deadlines for Responding to Recently Filed Motions for Summary Judgment by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Mangum, J) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
543 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Memorandum Re: Exceedance of 10−Page Limitation in Doc 162 and His Motion To Exceed 10−Page Limit Re: His Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Proposed Doc 516] [Doc 540, Proposed Doc 516] by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
544 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Thomas P. Liddy filed by Ann Thompson Uglietta. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
545 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Lodging and Service of Records in Non−Electronic Format by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 539 Order on Motion for Leave to File . (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
546 *NOTICE of Errata re: 520 Lodged Proposed Statement of Facts by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 59−Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 59−Part 2)(Anchors, Sarah) *Modified to add link to Doc 520 on 7/8/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 07/08/2016)
547 NOTICE of Errata re: 542 Stipulation Motion to Extend Deadlines for Responding to Recently Filed Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mangum, J) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
Disk − Plaintiff Lodging of Records in Non−Electronic Format (Doc. 539 and Doc. 545) received and stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
548 ORDER pursuant to 542 Stipulation re motions for summary judgment. Responses due 8/19/2016; replies due 9/16/2016. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/12/2016. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 53 of 70

07/15/2016 07/15/2016 07/15/2016
07/20/2016 07/21/2016 07/21/2016 07/25/2016 07/25/2016
07/25/2016
07/25/2016
07/27/2016 07/27/2016 08/03/2016 08/08/2016

549 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 529 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover, 1−2)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
550 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit 1 to Defendant Arpaio's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
551 FILED at 554 − SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibit 1 to Defendant Arpaio's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions re: 550 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit 1 to Defendant Arpaio's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) Modified on 7/21/2016 (REW). (Entered: 07/15/2016)
552 NOTICE of Appearance by Dominic Emil Draye on behalf of Arizona, State of. (Draye, Dominic) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
553 ORDER: Defendant Arpaio's Motion to File Under Seal 550 is granted; the Clerk is directed to accept for filing under seal the document lodged at 551 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/21/16.(REW) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
554 Sealed Exhibit 1 by Joseph M Arpaio, re: 549 Response to Motion for Sanctions. (REW) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
555 NOTICE of Errata re: 529 MOTION for Sanctions , 531 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
556 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 529 MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Sanctions filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
557 MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions, and Notice of Lodging Under Seal by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
558 *FILED at Doc. 560 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion For Sanctions Unredacted re: 557 MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions, and Notice of Lodging Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Anchors, Sarah) *Modified on 7/27/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 07/25/2016)
559 ORDER granting 557 Motion to Seal Unredacted Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/27/16.(MAP) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
560 UNREDATCED (SEALED) REPLY to 529 MOTION for Sanctions by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MAP) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
561 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen E Brody on behalf of Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
562 ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions (Doc. 531) cites frequently to page 73 of the Whelan−Gonzales deposition, but page 73 is not included in Plaintiffs' exhibits (Doc. 531−2). As soon as possible, and in any event by noon tomorrow, Plaintiffs' counsel shall email a copy of page 73 to the Court, with a copy of the email sent to defense

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 54 of 70

08/09/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/11/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016
08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016

counsel. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8−8−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
563 ORDER denying 529 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/9/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
564 ORDER granting 530 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/9/16. (MAP) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
565 SEALED MOTION for Sanctions by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits − A, B, F, G & H) (MAP) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
566 NOTICE re: Supplemental Notice to File Under Seal by Puente Arizona /Supplemental Notice regarding Plainitffs' Motion to file certain documents under seal and notice of lodging under Seal, DOC.521. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
567 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Combined Response to Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and Combined Rule 56.1 Controverting/New Statement of Facts by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
568 MOTION to Seal Document Maricopa County Defendants' LRCiv 5.6(c) Motion to File Under Seal; Maricopa County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
569 SEALED LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if 568 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 8/22/2016 (SCH). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
570 MOTION to Seal Document Defendant Maricopa County Defendants' LRCiv 5.6(c) Motion to File Under Seal; Their Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of their Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
571 SEALED LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of Their Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if 570 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 8/22/2016 (SCH). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
572 RESPONSE to Motion re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
573 *STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 572 Response to Motion by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to add document number on 8/22/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
574 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re: Plaintiffs Consolidated Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss and Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 55 of 70

08/19/2016
08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016 08/22/2016 08/22/2016 08/23/2016 08/23/2016
08/25/2016 08/25/2016

575 *Filed at (Doc. 588 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment re: 511 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Monell Issue, 510 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 525 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) Modified on 9/7/2016 (DXD). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
576 *Filed at (Doc. 589 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 9/7/2016 (DXD). (Entered: 08/19/2016)
577 MOTION to Seal Document 576 Lodged Proposed Document Plaintiffs Unredacted Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts and Exhibit 6 to Lai Declaration by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
578 SEALED LODGED Proposed Unredacted Controverting Statement of Facts and Exhibit 6 to Lai Declaration re: 577 MOTION to Seal Document 576 Lodged Proposed Document Plaintiffs Unredacted Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts and Exhibit 6 to Lai Declaration. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
579 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 574 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re: Plaintiffs Consolidated Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss and Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts, 510 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arizona, State of. (Draye, Dominic) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
580 NOTICE of Appearance by Michele Marie Iafrate on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
581 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Motion to Exceed 10−Page Limitation Re: Proposed Non−Confidential Version of His Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims and All Requests for Relief [Doc 516, 518, 534] by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
582 *Filed at (Doc. 584 ) LODGED Proposed Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of his Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(A) Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims and All Request for Relief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 8/25/2016 (DXD). (Entered: 08/23/2016)
583 ORDER granting 581 Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk of Court shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as (Doc. 582 ). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/24/16.(DXD) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
584 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 534 MOTION for Summary Judgment on all claims and all requests for relief by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit,

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 56 of 70

08/30/2016 09/01/2016 09/07/2016 09/07/2016 09/07/2016 09/07/2016 09/16/2016
09/16/2016
09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016

# 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit)(DXD) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
585 ORDER granting 567 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/30/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
586 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 574 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re: Plaintiffs Consolidated Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss and Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
587 ORDER granting 574 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing the documents lodged on the Court's docket as (Docs. 575 and 576 ). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/7/16. (DXD) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
588 RESPONSE to Motion re: 510 , 511 , 525 , 534 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (DXD) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
589 STATEMENT OF FACTS in opposition re: 510 , 511 , 525 , 534 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(DXD) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
590 AMENDED ORDER re: 587 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/7/2016. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
591 *MOTION for Leave to File County Defendants' Motion For Leave To File Amended Non−Confidential Version Of Their Joint Controverting Statement Of Facts In Support Of Their Joint Response in Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment And Motion To File Under Seal Their Original Non−Confidential Version Of Their Joint Controverting Statement Of Facts In Support Of Their Joint Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Due To Inadvertent Redaction Error [Doc. 573] by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann). *Modified to add MOTION to Seal Document event on 9/19/2016 (SCH). (Entered: 09/16/2016)
592 LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Amended Joint Controverting Statement Of Facts In Support Of Their Joint Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
593 MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Draye, Dominic) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
594 * (Filed at Doc. 604 ) LODGED Proposed Reply re: 593 MOTION for Leave to File Reply . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of. (Draye, Dominic) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
595 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 511 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Monell Issue Maricopa County's Reply In Support Of Its Monell Motion For Summary Judgment And Joinder In Motions Filed By Bill Montgomery, State Of Arizona And Sheriff Arpaio filed by Maricopa, County of. (Mangum, J) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
596 REPLY Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Reply In Support Of His Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(A) [ 534 Motion For Summary Judgment On All Claims And All Requests For Relief And His JOINDER In Defendant State Of Arizona's Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment On Facial Supremacy Clause Claim And Facial Equal Protection Clause Claim by Defendant Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage on 9/19/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 09/16/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 57 of 70

09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016
09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016
09/21/2016 09/22/2016 09/29/2016 10/12/2016 10/13/2016

597 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 525 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
598 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 526 Statement of Facts by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
599 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Plaintiffs Reply to County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
600 * (Filed at Doc. 606 ) LODGED Proposed Reply to County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 9/21/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 09/16/2016)
601 Joinder re: 596 Reply, 594 Lodged Proposed Document, 595 Reply to Response to Motion by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
602 NOTICE of Errata re: 520 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 523 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Exhibit A, # 2 Errata Exhibit B)(Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
603 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona' s Motion to exceed page limits (Doc. 593 ) is granted. The State of Arizona may file a 20−page Reply to its Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged on the Courts docket as Doc. 594 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/20/16. (LAD) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
604 REPLY to Response to 510 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arizona, State of. (LAD) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
605 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file reply brief in excess of page limits (Doc. 599 ) is granted. Plaintiffs may file a 21−page Reply to County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 600 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/20/16. (LAD) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
606 REPLY to Response to 538 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (LAD) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
607 ORDER. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 as to all pending motions before Judge David G Campbell. The Court will allow 45 minutes of argument per side. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/22/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
608 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
609 NOTICE of Errata re: 521 MOTION to Seal Document 519 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 520 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document and Notice of Lodging Under Seal, 566 Notice (Other) by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Anchors, Sarah) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
610 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Motion Hearing held on 10/13/2016. ORDERED taking under advisement 510 Motion for

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 58 of 70

Summary Judgment; taking under advisement 511 Motion for Summary Judgment; taking under advisement 516 Motion to Seal Document ; taking under advisement 521 Motion to Seal Document ; taking under advisement 525 Motion for Summary Judgment; taking under advisement 534 Motion for Summary Judgment; taking under advisement 538 Motion for Summary Judgment; taking under advisement 541 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; taking under advisement 543 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; taking under advisement 568 Motion to Seal Document ; taking under advisement 570 Motion to Seal Document ; taking under advisement 577 Motion to Seal Document ; taking under advisement 591 Motion for Leave to File; taking under advisement 591 Motion to Seal Document. Court will issue an order.

10/14/2016 10/17/2016 10/21/2016
11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016

APPEARANCES: Anne Lai, Jessica Bansal, Elizabeth Hercules−Paez, Kathleen Brody, Sarah Anchors, Daniel Pochoda, Ray Maldonado for Plaintiffs. Dominic Draye and Brock Heathcotte for Defendant State of Arizona. Ann Uglietta for Defendants Maricopa County and Bill Montgomery. Michele Uglietta and Renee Waters for Defendant Joe Arpaio. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 10:01 AM to 12:09 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
611 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery for proceedings held on October 13, 2016, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
612 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo for proceedings held on October 13, 2016, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
613 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of MOTION HEARING proceedings held on 10/13/2016, before Judge David G. Campbell. (Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/14/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/19/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
614 ORDER denying 521 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
615 ORDER denying 516 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
616 ORDER denying 577 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
617 ORDER denying 591 Motion for Leave to File; denying 591 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
618 ORDER denying 568 Motion to Seal Document ; denying 570 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
619 MOTION Joint Motion for Order Extending Time to Submit Filings in Response to Court Orders Doc. ##614; 615; 616; 617; and 618 by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
620 ORDER granting 541 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk shall accept for filing the document lodged in this case as Doc. 520 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/22/16. (LAD) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
621 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS in Support of 538 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 59 of 70

11/22/2016 11/22/2016
12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/06/2016 12/07/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Lai Declaration, # 2 Exhibits 1−10, # 3 Exhibits 11−20, # 4 Exhibits 21−33, # 5 Exhibits 34−50, # 6 Exhibits 51−58, # 7 Exhibit 59 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit 59 Part 2, # 9 Exhibits 59 Part 3 − 71, # 10 Exhibits 72−87, # 11 Exhibits 88−90, # 12 Exhibits 91−95, # 13 Exhibits 96−99, # 14 Exhibit 100, # 15 Exhibits 101−110, # 16 Exhibits 111−123, # 17 Exhibits 124−127, # 18 Exhibits 128−142, # 19 Exhibits 143−153, # 20 Exhibits 154−162, # 21 Earl Declaration, # 22 Garcia Declaration, # 23 Abundez Declaration, # 24 Villanueva Declaration, # 25 Jane Doe I Declaration, # 26 John Doe I Declaration, # 27 John Doe II Declaration, # 28 Gray Declaration, # 29 Burnette Declaration, # 30 Tamayo Declaration, # 31 Higgins Declaration)(LAD) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
622 ORDER granting 619 Motion for extension of time to file response to court orders. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/22/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
623 ORDER − 1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 538 ) is granted with respect to preemption of Defendants' use of the Form I−9 and attached documents, and otherwise denied. 2. Defendant State of Arizona's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 510 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants' use of the Form I−9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 3. Defendant Montgomery's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 534 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants use of the Form I−9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 4. Defendant Arpaio's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 525 ) is denied with respect to preemption of Defendants use of the Form I−9 and attached documents, granted with respect to Plaintiffs' other preemption claims, and granted with respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 5. Defendant Maricopa Countys motion for summary judgment on Monell liability (Doc. 511 ) is denied with respect to Defendant Arpaio and granted with respect to Defendant Montgomery. 6. The motion for leave to file excess pages (Docs. 543 ) is granted. 7. Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum on the appropriate remedy in this case, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 7, 2016. Defendants shall file a joint reply, not to exceed 15 pages, on or before December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a 7 page reply on or before January 4, 2017. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/22/16. (LAD) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
624 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 623 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
625 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration of November 22, 2016 Order by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
626 SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 625 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration of November 22, 2016 Order. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
627 MOTION for Extension of Time Request to Stay Briefing on Injunctive Relief or, in the Alternative, Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Memorandum by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
628 ORDER denying 624 Motion for Reconsideration without prejudice. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion for clarification or partial reconsideration (Doc. 624). The Court concludes that issues raised in the motion should be addressed as part of the parties' briefing on the appropriate remedy in this case. The more complete context of the remedies discussion will enable the Court to make a more informed decision on the

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 60 of 70

12/07/2016 12/07/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016

precise scope of the final order in this case. The Court therefore denies this motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs addressing these issues in the remedies briefing. (Plaintiffs will not forego their ability to suggest partial reconsideration as part of that briefing because of the 14−day rule in LRCiv 7.2(g)(2); the Court views Plaintiffs as having timely raised these issues.) To allow for briefing of these additional issues, Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum on the appropriate remedies in this case, not to exceed 18 pages, on or before December 16, 2016. Defendants shall file a joint response, not to exceed 18 pages, on or before January 10, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file a 10−page reply on or before January 20, 2017. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12−7−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
629 ORDER finding as moot 627 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. See Doc. 628. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12−7−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
630 ORDER. Within 7 days of this order, Defendants shall file a memorandum, not to exceed 3 pages, explaining why the standard for sealing is satisfied by the material at issue in Doc. 625. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12−7−16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
631 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts In Support Of His Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(A) Motion For Summary Judgment on All Claims and All Requests for Relief [Doc 516, 518, 534, 584, 615, 623] by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
633 MOTION to Seal Document Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's LRCiv5.6 Motion to file under seal Confidential version of his statement of undisputed material facts in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims and all requests for relief and casof exhibits 28−34, 36−38, 40, 41[Doc. 516, 518, 534, 584, 615, 623] by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
635 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for County Defendants' Motion to exceed page limitation Re: County Defendants' Joint response in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 568, 569, 572, 585, 618, 623] by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
636 * (Filed at Doc. 699 ) LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Re−Lodged Non−Confidential Version]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 3/27/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
637 MOTION to Seal Document County Defendants' LRCIV 5.6 Motion To File Under Seal Confidential Version Of Their Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
638 ***FILED at (Doc. 658 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment [Re−Lodged Confidential Version]. Document to be filed by Clerk if 637 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 12/12/2016 (SCH). Modified on 12/20/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
639 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for County Defendants' Joint Controverting Statement Of Facts In Support of Their Joint Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment County Defendants' Motion To Exceed 10−Page Limitation Re: County Defendants' Joint Controverting Statement Of Facts In Support of Their Joint Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 61 of 70

12/09/2016
12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016
12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/09/2016

Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
640 * (Filed at Doc. 700 ) LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of Their Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Re−Lodged Non−Confidential Version]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 3/27/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
641 MOTION to Seal Document County Defendants' LRCIV 5.6 Motion To File Under Seal Confidential Version Of Their Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support Of Their Joint Response in Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and CDCSOF Exhibits 2, 10, 12 − 15, 19 by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
642 ***FILED at (Doc. 660 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed County Defendants' Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of Their Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Re−Lodged Confidential Version]. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) Modified on 12/20/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
643 MOTION to Seal Document 614 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 621 Statement of Facts Exhibits 131, 136, 139, 140 and 141 to the Lai Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
644 ***FILED at (Doc. 662 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 131, 136, 139, 140 and 141 [Confidential Version] re: 643 MOTION to Seal Document 614 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 621 Statement of Facts Exhibits 131, 136, 139, 140 and 141 to the Lai Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 12/20/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
645 NOTICE re: of Lodging of Documents Under Seal by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 614 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 621 Statement of Facts Unredacted Versions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Statement of Facts, and Exhibits 33, 48, 49, 64, 73, 84, 85, 86, 91, 155 and 159 to the Lai Declaration. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
646 MOTION to Seal Document 614 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 621 Statement of Facts Unredacted Versions of Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Statement of Facts, and Exhibits 33, 48, 49, 64, 73, 84, 85, 86, 91, 155 and 159 to the Lai Declaration by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
647 ***FILED at (Doc. 664 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed Documents re: 646 MOTION to Seal Document 614 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 621 Statement of Facts Unredacted Versions of Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Statement of Facts, and Exhibits 33, 48, 49, 64, 73, 84, 85, 86, 91, 155 and 159 t. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit 33, # 3 Exhibit 48, # 4 Exhibit 49, # 5 Exhibit 64, # 6 Exhibit 73, # 7

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 62 of 70

12/09/2016
12/09/2016 12/10/2016
12/10/2016 12/14/2016
12/15/2016 12/16/2016 12/20/2016

Exhibit 84, # 8 Exhibit 85, # 9 Exhibit 86, # 10 Exhibit 91, # 11 Exhibit 155, # 12 Exhibit 159)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 12/20/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
648 NOTICE re: Filing of Plaintiffs' Revised Statement of Facts, Exhibits 33, 53, 64, 70, 71, 73, 76, 87, 91 and 113 to the Lai Declaration, and Earl Declaration [Non−Confidential Versions] by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 621 Statement of Facts . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit 33, # 3 Exhibit 53, # 4 Exhibit 64, # 5 Exhibit 70, # 6 Exhibit 71, # 7 Exhibit 73, # 8 Exhibit 76, # 9 Exhibit 87, # 10 Exhibit 91, # 11 Exhibit 113, # 12 Affidavit Earl Declaration)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
649 MOTION to Seal Document 616 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 589 Statement of Facts Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendants Motions for Summary Judgement by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/10/2016)
650 ***FILED at (Doc. 666 )−−SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 649 MOTION to Seal Document 616 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 589 Statement of Facts Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendants Motions for Summary Judgement. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) Modified on 12/20/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/10/2016)
651 NOTICE re: Filing of Plaintiffs' Revised Redacted Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts and Exhibit 6 to Lai Declaration in Support of Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [Non−Confidential Version] by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo re: 589 Statement of Facts . (Attachments: # 1 Controverting SOF, # 2 Exhibit 6)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/10/2016)
652 MOTION to Seal Document Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery's LRCIV 5.6 Motion to File Under Seal (1) PSOF 144 − 146 And PSOF Ex. 73 At 226:15 − 228:24; PSOF Ex. 84; PSOF Ex. 85; PSOF Ex. 86; And PSOF Ex. 91 At 151:1 − 17 And 220:4 − 221:18 Set Forth In The Re−Lodged Confidential Version Of Plaintiffs' Statement Of Facts In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And (2) Page 23:27−28 Set Forth In The Re−Lodged Confidential Version Of Palintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
653 MOTION to Seal Document in Response to Docs. 633, 637 and 641 by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
654 MEMORANDUM Regarding Injunctive Relief 628 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 623 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
634 *SEALED Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment re: 534 Motion for Summary Judgment Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Statement of undisputed material facts in support of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(A) Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims and all requests for relief [re−lodged confidential version] re: 516 , 518 , 534 , 584 , 615 , 623 ] by Defendant Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 63 of 70

12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016
12/20/2016 12/20/2016
12/20/2016

Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exhibit, # 48 Exhibit, # 49 Exhibit, # 50 Exhibit, # 51 Exhibit, # 52 Exhibit, # 53 Exhibit, # 54 Exhibit, # 55 Exhibit, # 56 Exhibit, # 57 Exhibit, # 58 Exhibit, # 59 Exhibit, # 60 Exhibit, # 61 Exhibit, # 62 Exhibit, # 63 Exhibit, # 64 Exhibit, # 65 Exhibit, # 66 Exhibit, # 67 Exhibit, # 68 Exhibit, # 69 Exhibit, # 70 Exhibit, # 71 Exhibit, # 72 Exhibit, # 73 Exhibit, # 74 Exhibit, # 75 Exhibit, # 76 Exhibit, # 77 Exhibit, # 78 Exhibit, # 79 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified on 12/9/2016 to correct event to a Sealed Lodged Proposed Document; Document attachment securities modified from public to sealed(ATD). *Modified on 12/20/2016 to change from Lodged to Filed pursuant to 656 ; file date updated accordingly from 12/9/16 to 12/20/16 (ATD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
655 MOTION to Add Confidential Viewers re: 373 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion for Protective Order by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
656 ORDER granting 633 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 634 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
657 ORDER granting 637 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 638 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
658 *Sealed Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Maricopa, County of, Joseph M Arpaio and Bill Montgomery, re: 572 Redacted Response. (ATD) *Modified to correct document linkage. (Entered: 12/20/2016)
659 ORDER granting 641 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 642 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
660 *Sealed Joint Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, re: 573 Redacted Statement of Facts by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of and Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Index to Exhibits, # 2 Exhibits) (ATD) *Modified to correct document linkage on 12/22/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/20/2016)
661 ORDER granting 643 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 644 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
662 *Sealed Exhibits 131, 136, 139, 140 & 141 to the Lai Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: 621 Redacted Exhibits by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 136, # 2 Exhibit 139, # 3 Exhibit 140, # 4 Exhibit 141) (ATD) *Modified on 12/22/2016 to correct document linkage (ATD). (Entered: 12/20/2016)
663 ORDER granting 646 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 647 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
664 *Sealed Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Statement of Facts and Exhibits in Support of re: 538 Redacted Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 621 Redacted Statement of Facts and Exhibits in Support by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona and Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit 33, # 3 Exhibit 48, # 4 Exhibit 49, # 5 Exhibit 64, # 6 Exhibit 73, # 7 Exhibit 84, # 8 Exhibit 85, # 9 Exhibit 86, # 10 Exhibit 91, # 11 Exhibit 155, # 12 Exhibit 159) (ATD) *Modified on 12/22/2016 to add document linkage (ATD). (Entered: 12/20/2016)
665 ORDER granting 649 Motion to Seal Document. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 650 the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/20/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 64 of 70

12/20/2016 12/21/2016 12/22/2016 12/22/2016 01/10/2017 01/10/2017
01/10/2017
01/11/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017
01/21/2017

666 *Sealed Unredacted Version of Plaintiff's Consolidated Controverting Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment re: 589 Redacted Statement of Facts by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona and Erin Tamayo. (ATD) *Modified on 12/22/2016 to correct document linkage (ATD). (Entered: 12/20/2016)
667 MOTION to Add/Remove Persons Who May Share "Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only" Information re: 373 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Order on Motion for Protective Order by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
668 ORDER granting 667 Motion to add/remove persons who may share confidential attorneys' eyes only information. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/22/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
669 ORDER granting 655 Motion addition to confidential attorneys' eyes only information list. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/22/2016.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
670 MOTION to Seal Document Defendants' LR 5.6 Motion For Leave To File Under Seal Confidential Version Of Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief by Arizona, State of, Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
671 SEALED LODGED Proposed Confidential Version of Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief [Doc 654]. Document to be filed by Clerk if 670 Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of, Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1 of 5, # 2 Exhibit Part 2 of 5, # 3 Exhibit Part 3 of 5, # 4 Exhibit Part 4 of 5, # 5 Exhibit Part 5 of 5)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified to link to Motion to Seal on 1/11/2017 (SCH). (Entered: 01/10/2017)
672 * RESPONSE Public Version Of Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief Doc 654 by Defendants Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Arizona, State of, Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1 of 17, # 2 Exhibit Part 2 of 17, # 3 Exhibit Part 3 of 17, # 4 Exhibit Part 4 of 17, # 5 Exhibit Part 5 of 17, # 6 Exhibit Part 6 of 17, # 7 Exhibit Part 7 of 17, # 8 Exhibit Part 8 of 17, # 9 Exhibit Part 9 of 17, # 10 Exhibit Part 10 of 17, # 11 Exhibit Part 11 of 17, # 12 Exhibit Part 12 of 17, # 13 Exhibit Part 13 of 17, # 14 Exhibit Part 14 of 17, # 15 Exhibit Part 15 of 17, # 16 Exhibit Part 16 of 17, # 17 Exhibit Part 17 of 17)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to add document linkage and add additional filers on 1/11/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 01/10/2017)
673 NOTICE re: Substitution of Sheriff Paul Penzone by Joseph M Arpaio . (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
674 MOTION to Seal Document Link to Docs. 672 and 671−5 by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (MacLean, Emilou) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
675 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Memorandum on Injunctive Relief by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
676 * (Filed at Doc. 680 ) LODGED Proposed Redacted Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Memorandum on Injunctive Relief re: 675 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Memorandum on Injunctive Relief . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 1/24/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 01/21/2017)
677 MOTION to Seal Document by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 65 of 70

01/21/2017
01/24/2017 01/24/2017 02/28/2017
03/08/2017 03/08/2017 03/09/2017

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 01/21/2017)
678 *FILED at Doc. 692 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Injunctive Relief re: 677 MOTION to Seal Document . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) *Modified on 3/17/2017 (MAP)*. (Entered: 01/21/2017)
679 ORDER granting 675 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk of Court shall accept for filing the document lodged as Doc. 676 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/24/17. (LAD) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
680 REPLY to 672 Joint Response to Plaintiffs' 654 Memorandum on Injunctive Relief by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (LAD) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
681 ORDER re: 654 Motion for Injunctive Relief/Memorandum filed by Erin Tamayo, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Puente Arizona, Russell Andrew Burnette. Oral Argument shall be held on 3/9/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. The Court will allow 30 minutes of argument per side. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/28/2017. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
682 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
683 NOTICE re: Defendant Maricopa County Attorney's Notice Of Supplementation Of Record Re: Revised MCAO Prosecution Policy 1.61 In Support Of Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
684 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Motion Hearing re: Injunctive Relief held on 3/9/2017. Matter taken under advisement. Court will issue an order.

03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/17/2017

APPEARANCES: Anne Lai, Kathleen Brody, Daniel Pochoda, Ray Maldonado, Emilou MacLean for Plaintiffs. Dominic Draye and Brock Heathcotte for Defendant State of Arizona. Rene Waters and Michele Iafrate for Defendants Former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Sheriff Paul Penzone. J. Kenneth Mangum and Ann Uglietta for Defendants Maricopa County and Bill Montgomery. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 9:02 AM to 10:20 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
685 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery for proceedings held on 3/9/2017, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
686 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo for proceedings held on March 9, 2017, Judge David G Campbell hearing judge(s). (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
687 SUPPLEMENT to re: 672 Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Injuctive Relief by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 18−19)(Waters, Renee) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
688 MOTION File Non−Electronic Form re: 687 Supplement to Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Injuctive Relief by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waters, Renee) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
689 MOTION to Strike 687 Supplement or in the Alternative, to Permit and Consider Plaintiffs' Response by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 66 of 70

03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/17/2017 03/20/2017
03/21/2017 03/21/2017
03/21/2017
03/23/2017 03/23/2017 03/24/2017

690 ORDER denying 670 Motion to Seal. Defendants shall refile their motion to seal taking into account the documents that Plaintiffs no longer request to be filed under seal. (See Doc. 674 ). Defendants shall file a revised Response Public Version of Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Injunctive Relief (Doc. 672 ) to reflect the changes made to the sealed portions of this document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/17/17.(MAP) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
691 ORDER granting 677 Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing under seal the document lodged on the Court's docket as Doc. 678 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/17/17.(MAP) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
692 SEALED (UNREDACTED) REPLY to Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Injunctive Relief 672 by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (MAP) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
703 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of MOTION HEARING proceedings held on 03/09/2017, before Judge David G. Campbell. (Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/19/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
693 MOTION to Seal Document Per Doc. 690, Defendants' Revised LR 5.6 Motion for Leave To File Under Seal Confidential Versions Of Exhibits 2, 7, and 11 To Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief by Arizona, State of, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
694 *FILED at Doc. 697 * SEALED LODGED Proposed Per Doc. 690, Defendants' Confidential Versions Of Exhibits 2, 7, and 11 To Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Arizona, State of, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Part 5)(Uglietta, Ann) *Modified on 3/23/2017 (MAP)*. (Entered: 03/21/2017)
695 RESPONSE Per Doc. 690, Public Version of Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief [Doc. 654] (Oral Argument Requested) by Defendants Arizona, State of, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Part 5, # 6 Exhibit Part 6, # 7 Exhibit Part 7, # 8 Exhibit Part 8, # 9 Exhibit Part 9, # 10 Exhibit Part 10, # 11 Exhibit Part 11, # 12 Exhibit Part 12, # 13 Exhibit Part 13, # 14 Exhibit Part 14, # 15 Exhibit Part 15, # 16 Exhibit Part 16, # 17 Exhibit Part 17)(Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
696 ORDER granting 693 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall accept for filing under seal the document lodged under seal as Doc. 694 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/23/17.(MAP) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
697 Sealed Defendants' Confidential Versions Of Exhibits 2, 7, and 11 to 672 Defendants' Joint Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum On Injunctive Relief by Arizona, State of, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Part 3, # 4 Exhibit Part 4, # 5 Exhibit Part 5)(MAP) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
632 * Defendant Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of his Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(A) Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims and All Request for Relief [Re−Lodged Non−Confidential Version] by Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 67 of 70

03/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/27/2017 03/27/2017
03/27/2017

Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exhibit, # 48 Exhibit, # 49 Exhibit, # 50 Exhibit, # 51 Exhibit, # 52 Exhibit, # 53 Exhibit, # 54 Exhibit, # 55 Exhibit, # 56 Exhibit, # 57 Exhibit, # 58 Exhibit, # 59 Exhibit, # 60 Exhibit, # 61 Exhibit, # 62 Exhibit, # 63 Exhibit, # 64 Exhibit, # 65 Exhibit, # 66 Exhibit, # 67 Exhibit, # 68 Exhibit, # 69 Exhibit, # 70 Exhibit, # 71 Exhibit, # 72 Exhibit, # 73 Exhibit, # 74 Exhibit, # 75 Exhibit, # 76 Exhibit, # 77 Exhibit, # 78 Exhibit, # 79 Exhibit, # 80 Exhibit, # 81 Exhibit, # 82 Exhibit, # 83 Exhibit, # 84 Exhibit, # 85 Exhibit, # 86 Exhibit, # 87 Exhibit, # 88 Exhibit, # 89 Exhibit, # 90 Exhibit, # 91 Exhibit, # 92 Exhibit, # 93 Exhibit, # 94 Exhibit, # 95 Exhibit, # 96 Exhibit, # 97 Exhibit, # 98 Exhibit, # 99 Exhibit, # 100 Exhibit, # 101 Exhibit, # 102 Exhibit, # 103 Exhibit, # 104 Exhibit, # 105 Exhibit, # 106 Exhibit, # 107 Exhibit, # 108 Exhibit, # 109 Exhibit, # 110 Exhibit, # 111 Exhibit, # 112 Exhibit, # 113 Exhibit, # 114 Exhibit, # 115 Exhibit, # 116 Exhibit, # 117 Exhibit, # 118 Exhibit, # 119 Exhibit, # 120 Exhibit, # 121 Exhibit, # 122 Exhibit, # 123 Exhibit, # 124 Exhibit, # 125 Exhibit, # 126 Exhibit, # 127 Exhibit, # 128 Exhibit)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to filed per Order 698 on 3/27/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
698 ORDER: The motions to exceed page limits (Docs. 631,635,639) are granted. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing the documents lodged as Docs. 632,636,640 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/24/2017.(TCA) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
699 RESPONSE in Opposition to 538 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (LAD) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
700 JOINT CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS in Support of Joint 699 Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Index, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit) (LAD) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
701 ORDER − Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is granted. Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is granted. Defendant Penzone shall create a written policy for MCSO consistent with this permanent injunction and disseminate it within MCSO within 60 days of this order. Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief against Defendants Montgomery and Maricopa County, and for expungement of the convictions of Plaintiffs Cervantes Arreola and Estrada Fernandez, are denied. Defendants' motion to file a non−electronic supplement (Doc. 688 ) is denied, and Plaintiffs' motion to strike (Doc. 689 ) is granted. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in accordance with this order. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/24/17. (LAD) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
702 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court's Order filed March 27, 2017, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs as follows: Plaintiffs request for declaratory relief is granted. The Court declares as follows: Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Defendants are preempted from (a) employing or relying on (b) the Form I−9 and any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the federal employment verification process (d) for purposes of investigating orprosecuting viola tions of A.R.S. § 13−2002, A.R.S § 13−2008(A), or A.R.S § 13−2009(A)(3). This declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I−9 process if they were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment application. Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is granted. Defendant Penzone, as Maricopa County Sheriff, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them, are permanently enjoined from (a) employing or relying on (b) the Form I−9 and any other documents or information (c) submitted to an employer solely as part of the federal employment verification process (d) for purposes of investigating or prosecuting violations of

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 68 of 70

04/04/2017 04/07/2017 04/12/2017 05/10/2017 05/10/2017
05/18/2017 05/22/2017 05/31/2017 06/14/2017 06/15/2017

A.R.S. § 13−2002, A.R.S § 13−2008(A), or A.R.S § 13−2009(A)(3). This declaration does not apply to List A, B, or C documents (as identified by 8 C.F.R. §274a.2, or any successor regulation) submitted in the I−9 process if they were also submitted for a purpose independent of the federal employment verification system, such as to demonstrate ability to drive or as part of a typical employment application. Defendant Penzone shall create a written policy for MCSO consistent with this permanent injunction and disseminate it within MCSO within 60 days of this order. This matter is hereby terminated. (LAD) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
704 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Daniel J. Pochoda filed by Kathleen E Brody. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
705 *First MOTION for Extension of Time Filing Application for Attorneys Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses, Bill of Costs, and Notices of Appeal (Stipulated) by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) *Modified to correct event on 4/11/2017* (REW). (Entered: 04/07/2017)
706 ORDER granting 705 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application for attorneys' fees due 5/10/2017, notice of appeal due 30 days after ruling on motion for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/12/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
707 BILL OF COSTS including Itemization and Documentation by Guadalupe Arredondo, Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Itemization of Taxable Costs− Index, # 2 Tab − 1 L.R. CIV 54.1(E)(1), # 3 Tab 2 − L.R. CIV 54.1(E)(2), # 4 Tab 3 − L.R. CIV 54.1(E)(3), # 5 Tab 4 − L.R. CIV 54.1(E)(4))(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Consultation, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Joshua Stehlik, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Bram Elias, # 5 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas Fritzsche, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of Anne Lai, # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Kathy Brody, # 8 Affidavit Declaration of Daniel J. Pochoda, # 9 Affidavit Declaration of Ray Ybarra Maldonado, # 10 Affidavit Declaration of Jessica Karp Bansal, # 11 Affidavit Declaration of Carol Sobel, # 12 Affidavit Declaration of Sigfredo Rubio, # 13 Affidavit Declaration of Cindy Panuco, # 14 Affidavit Declaration of Dan Stormer, # 15 Affidavit Affidavit of Sarah Anchors)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
709 First MOTION for Extension of Time regarding Responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses (Doc. 708), Objections to Bill of Costs (Doc. 707), and Plaintiffs' Replies by Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
710 NOTICE re: Compliance by Paul Penzone re: 701 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Strike . (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
711 ORDER granting 709 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline as to 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. Response due 6/23/2017; replies due 7/17/2017. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/31/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
712 * STIPULATED MOTION to Further Extend time for filing Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses, Defendants' Objections to Bill of Costs, and Plaintiffs' Replies by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Uglietta, Ann) * Modified to correct event on 6/15/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 06/14/2017)
713 ORDER granting 712 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. Response due 7/10/2017; reply due 8/7/2017. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/15/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 69 of 70

07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/11/2017 07/14/2017 07/24/2017 07/25/2017 07/26/2017 08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/21/2017
08/22/2017 08/22/2017

714 RESPONSE to Motion re: 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
715 * RESPONSE in Opposition re: 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses filed by Paul Penzone, Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Klain Expert Report and 1 Klain Declaration)(Iafrate, Michele) * Modified to add additional filers on 7/11/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 07/10/2017)
716 * Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 715) by Paul Penzone, Maricopa, County of and Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) * Modified to add additional filers on 7/12/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 07/11/2017)
717 ORDER granting 716 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants Penzone, Maricopa County, and Montgomery may file a response to the pending motion for attorneys' fees not to exceed 24 pages in length. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/14/2017. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
718 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 715 Response in Opposition to Motion, 714 Response to Motion by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
719 NOTICE of Errata re: 718 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 715 Response in Opposition to Motion, 714 Response to Motion by Plaintiffs Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
720 ORDER granting 718 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. Reply due 8/21/2017. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/26/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
721 Taxation Judgment in amount of $19,594.78 against defendant. Signed by Chief Deputy Clerk Michael O'Brien on 8/21/2017. (CSM) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
722 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Consolidated Reply to Defendants Oppositions to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
723 * (Filed at 725 ) LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Reply to Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses re: 722 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Consolidated Reply to Defendants Oppositions to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. , 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Colin Campbell, # 2 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Anne Lai, # 3 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Kathy Brody, # 4 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Ray Ybarra Maldonado, # 5 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Jessica Karp Bansal, # 6 Affidavit Supplemental Affidavit of Sarah Anchors, # 7 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Dan Stormer)(Lai, Anne) Modified on 8/22/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 08/22/2017)
724 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file reply brief in excess of page limits (Doc. 722 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing the document lodged as Doc. 723 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/22/17. (LAD) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
725 CONSOLIDATED REPLY to Responses to 708 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Non−Taxable Expenses filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo.

Case: 2:14-cv-1356 As of: 02/01/2018 01:16 PM MST 70 of 70

08/22/2017 08/30/2017
08/31/2017 09/13/2017
09/21/2017
10/25/2017
11/17/2017 11/20/2017 11/22/2017 12/05/2017 12/13/2017 12/22/2017 01/26/2018

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Colin F Campbell, # 2 Supplemental Declaration of Ann Lai, # 3 Supplemental Declaration of Kathleen E Brody, # 4 Supplemental Declaration of Ray Ybarra Maldonado, # 5 Supplemental Declaration of Jessica Karp Bansal, # 6 Supplemental Affidavit of Sarah Anchors, # 7 Supplemental Declaration of Dan Stormer) (LAD) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
726 MOTION re: 721 Costs Taxed by Arizona, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
727 *Joint MOTION to Strike 725 Reply to Response to Motion, MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply, MOTION for Sanctions by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Motion to Strike, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Request for Leave to File Sur−Reply and Sanctions)(Iafrate, Michele). *Added MOTION for Leave to File, MOTION for Sanctions on 8/31/2017 (REK). (Entered: 08/30/2017)
728 Joinder re: 727 Joint MOTION to Strike 725 Reply to Response to Motion or in the Alternative, Request for Leave to File Sur−Reply and Request for Sanctions MOTION for Leave to File MOTION for Sanctions by Defendant Arizona, State of. filed by Arizona, State of. (Heathcotte, Brock) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
729 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 727 Joint MOTION to Strike 725 Reply to Response to Motion or in the Alternative, Request for Leave to File Sur−Reply and Request for Sanctions MOTION for Leave to File MOTION for Sanctions filed by Sara Cervantes Arreola, Russell Andrew Burnette, Elia Estrada Fernandez, Susan E Frederick−Gray, Puente Arizona, Erin Tamayo. (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
730 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 727 Joint MOTION to Strike 725 Reply to Response to Motion or in the Alternative, Request for Leave to File Sur−Reply and Request for Sanctions MOTION for Leave to File MOTION for Sanctions filed by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery, Paul Penzone. (Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
731 ORDER − Plaintiffs motion for fees and expenses (Doc. 708 ) is granted in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $1,015,990 in attorneys' fees and $20,532.08 in non−taxable expenses against the Maricopa County Attorney in his official capacity, the Maricopa County Sheriff in his official capacity, and Maricopa County. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 727 ) is denied. The State's motion for relief from taxable costs (Doc. 726 ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/25/2017.(KAS) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
732 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notices of Appeal (Stipulated) by Paul Penzone. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Iafrate, Michele) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
733 ORDER granting 732 Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Documents. Appeal due 12/26/2017. The parties are advised that the Court will not grant further extension to this deadline absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/20/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
734 NOTICE re: Satisfaction of Judgment of Taxation of Costs by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery re: 721 Costs Taxed . (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
735 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Dominic Emil Draye. (Draye, Dominic) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
736 *Third Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Notices Of Appeal by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mangum, J) *Modified to correct motion type on 12/14/2017 (REK). (Entered: 12/13/2017)
737 ORDER granting 736 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notices of appeal is extended to 1/26/2018. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/22/2017.(DGC, nvo) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
738 NOTICE of Settlement by Maricopa, County of, Bill Montgomery. (Uglietta, Ann) (Entered: 01/26/2018)