2/10/2018

Northern District of Ohio

Cat12,Knepp,Standard,Termed

U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Toledo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic et al Date Filed: 04/28/2015

v. United States Customs and Border Protection

Date Terminated: 07/28/2016

Assigned to: Judge Jack Zouhary

Jury Demand: None

Case in other court: Ohio Southern, 2:14-cv-02329

Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information

Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Act

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic

represented by Amna A. Akbar Ohio State University Moritz College of Law 55 West 12 Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 614-292-5432 Fax: 614-292-5511 Email: akbar.20@osu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality - Toledo Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419-255-0814 Fax: 419-259-2880 Email: emollo@ablelaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Ilgen Cooke Ohio State University Moritz College of Law 55 West 12 Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 614-688-3069 Fax: 614-292-5511 Email: cooke.62@osu.edu TERMINATED: 05/12/2015

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

Mark R. Heller Advocates for Basic Legal Equality - Toledo Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419-255-0814
1/8

2/10/2018
Plaintiff Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.

Northern District of Ohio
Fax: 419-259-2880 Email: mheller@ablelaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark R. Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amna A. Akbar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
United States Customs and Border Protection

represented by John J. Stark Ofﬁce of the U.S. Attorney - Columbus Southern District of Ohio Ste. 200 303 Marconi Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 614-469-5715 Fax: 614-469-5240 Email: john.stark@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guillermo J. Rojas Ofﬁce of the U.S. Attorney - Toledo Northern District of Ohio Ste. 308 433 North Summit Street Toledo, OH 43604 419-259-6376 Fax: 419-259-6360 Email: guillermo.rojas@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jody L. King Ofﬁce of the U.S. Attorney - Toledo Northern District of Ohio Ste. 308 433 North Summit Street Toledo, OH 43604 419-259-6376 Fax: 419-259-6360 Email: jody.king@usdoj.gov

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

2/8

2/10/2018

Northern District of Ohio
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Hammond Johnson Ofﬁce of the U.S. Attorney - Cleveland Northern District of Ohio Ste. 400 801 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 216-622-3679 Fax: 216-522-4982 Email: lisa.hammond.johnson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/18/2014
11/19/2014
11/21/2014 11/25/2014 11/26/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 01/07/2015 01/07/2015 01/29/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Injunctive Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-4816246), ﬁled by The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit FOIA Request) (Akbar, Amna) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 11/18/2014)
2 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Gregory L. Frost for all further proceedings. Judge Edmund A Sargus no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 11/19/2014. (dh1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 11/19/2014)
3 Compliance forms regarding Local Rule 83.6 signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 11/21/14. (sem1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 11/21/2014)
4 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic Summons (Akbar, Amna) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 11/25/2014)
5 Summons Issued as to United States Customs and Border Protection (kk2) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 11/26/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Eugenio Mollo, Jr for Plaintiffs Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic (Mollo, Eugenio) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 12/03/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark R Heller for Plaintiffs Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic (Heller, Mark) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 12/03/2014)
8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.. (Heller, Mark) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 12/03/2014)
9 STIPULATION Stipulated Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. (Stark, John) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 01/07/2015)
Reset Deadlines: Dft's answer due 1/29/2015. (sln1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 01/08/2015)
10 MOTION to Change Venue by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Muniz-Muniz Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B, Muniz-

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

3/8

2/10/2018

Northern District of Ohio
Muniz Docket Sheet, # 3 Exhibit C, Muniz-Muniz Stipulated Protective Order) (Stark, John) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/30/2015

11 ORDER - re 10 Motion to Change Venue, ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection, Non oral hearing on Motion set for 3/16/2015 08:00 AM before Judge Gregory L. Frost. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 1/30/15. (kn) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 01/30/2015)

02/18/2015

12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Change Venue New date requested 2/26/2015. by Plaintiff The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic. (Cooke, Elizabeth) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015

NOTICE re 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Change Venue : The document was ﬁled without a certiﬁcate of service, which is required pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2. To correct the ﬁling, use the "Certiﬁcate of Service" event found under Civil Events - Initial Pleadings and Service - Service of Process and link the event to the Motion for Extension of Time when prompted. (kk2) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic re 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Cooke, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 2/19/2015 to correct text & document link (kk2) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/19/2015

14 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 10 MOTION to Change Venue Responses due by 2/26/2015. Non oral hearing remains unchanged. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 2/19/15. (kn) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 02/19/2015)

02/26/2015

15 RESPONSE in Opposition re 10 MOTION to Change Venue Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue ﬁled by Plaintiff The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-E) (Cooke, Elizabeth) Modiﬁed on 2/27/2015 to correct text (kk2) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 02/26/2015)

03/11/2015

16 NOTICE of Hearing: Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/8/2015 11:45 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers. (sln1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 03/11/2015)

03/11/2015

17 REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 MOTION to Change Venue ﬁled by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit B, Federal Defendants' Responses to Second Set of Discovery Requests) (Stark, John) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 03/11/2015)

04/01/2015 18 RULE 26(f) REPORT of the Parties by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. (Stark, John) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/07/2015

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING: Preliminary Pretrial Conference reset to 4/14/2015 11:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers. (Previously set for 4/8/2015.) (sln1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 04/07/2015)

04/08/2015

19 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING: Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/15/2015 11:00 AM in Teleconference before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers. (Previously set for 4/14/2015.) (sln1) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 04/08/2015)

04/28/2015 20 ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Judge Gregory L.

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

4/8

2/10/2018
04/28/2015 04/28/2015 04/28/2015 04/29/2015 04/29/2015
04/29/2015
04/29/2015 05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/15/2015 05/19/2015
06/22/2015

Northern District of Ohio
Frost on 4/28/15. (sem) [Transferred from ohsd on 4/28/2015.] (Entered: 04/28/2015)
21 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of Ohio Southern. Case number 2:14-cv-02329. Electronic ﬁle, transfer order, and docket sheet received. (Entered: 04/28/2015)
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick assigned to case. (H,JD) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II. (H,JD) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
Copy of docket sheet mailed to attorneys Elizabeth Ilgen Cooke and Amna Amber Akbar. (H,JD) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
Notice to Attorney Amna Amber Akbar. The Court ﬁnds no record of your being admitted to practice in the Northern District of Ohio. Pursuant to LR 83.5, an Application for Admission to Practice or a Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in this case must be ﬁled within 10 business days. The local rules and the attorney admission application are available on the court's web site at: www.ohnd.uscourts.gov. If you are not the attorney of record in this case, a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney pursuant to LR 83.9 must be ﬁled within 10 business days. (P,G) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
Notice to Attorney Elizabeth Ilgen Cooke. The Court ﬁnds no record of your being admitted to practice in the Northern District of Ohio. Pursuant to LR 83.5, an Application for Admission to Practice or a Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in this case must be ﬁled within 10 business days. The local rules and the attorney admission application are available on the court's web site at: www.ohnd.uscourts.gov. If you are not the attorney of record in this case, a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney pursuant to LR 83.9 must be ﬁled within 10 business days. Related document 21 . (P,G) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
22 Attorney Appearance by Guillermo J. Rojas ﬁled by on behalf of United States Customs and Border Protection. (Rojas, Guillermo) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
23 Order of Reassignment. This case is returned to the Clerk for reassignment to Judge Jack Zouhary for all further proceedings as related to 3:09cv2865. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 5/12/2015. (S,AL) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
Judge Jack Zouhary assigned to case. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick terminated. (H,JD) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
24 Notice of Substitution of Counsel removing attorney Elizabeth I. Cooke and adding attorney Amna A. Akbar and adding attorney Mark R. Heller ﬁled by on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
NOTICE [non-document] of Phone Status set for 5/19/15 at 9:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel are instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
25 ORDER. Phone Status held on 5/19/15. Counsel will discuss phased production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request. Further Phone Status set for 6/22/15 at 9:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel to use District Court conference line. At that time, counsel shall report on agreed plan and time frame, and be prepared to set further case dates. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/19/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
26 ORDER. Phone Status held on 6/22/15. Counsel continue to discuss phased production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request. Joint status report outlining agreed plan and time frame for document production, noting any disputes due by 7/20/15. Further phone status set for 7/21/15 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel to use same

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

5/8

2/10/2018

Northern District of Ohio
District Court conference line. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/22/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 06/22/2015)

07/20/2015 27 Joint Status Report ﬁled by All Defendants. (Rojas, Guillermo) (Entered: 07/21/2015)

07/22/2015

28 ORDER. Phone Status held on 7/21/15. Case will proceed on the Standard Track with trial (if necessary) no later than APRIL 2016. By 7/23/15, counsel shall ﬁle Proposed Scheduling Order, to include speciﬁc deadlines for phased collection, review, and production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request. Further Phone Status set for 11/23/15 at 11:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Court will provide counsel with the conference line number prior to the phone status. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/22/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/23/2015

29 ORDER. Phone conference held on 7/23/15 to discuss who bears responsibility for paying FOIA processing fees and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a waiver or reduction of fees. Counsel are prepared to submit document production schedule. Production should proceed as agreed; to the extent there is disagreement about payment, that matter can proceed on a parallel track and should not delay production of documents. If counsel continue to have a disagreement on fees, they may submit a proposed brieﬁng schedule for Court's review and approval. Government should not delay production of documents just because payment of FOIA processing fee remains unresolved. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/23/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/23/2015 30 Proposed Order on Phased Production Plan ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. (Rojas, Guillermo) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/24/2015

31 Stipulation & Order approving 30 Proposed Order on Phased Production Plan ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/24/2015. (D,L) (Entered: 07/24/2015)

11/10/2015

32 Status Report for Phase I ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. (Rojas, Guillermo) (Entered: 11/10/2015)

11/13/2015

33 Order re 32 Status Report. Further Status Report due by 1/15/2016. Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/13/2015. (D,L) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/17/2015

NOTICE [non-document]. At the request of counsel, the Phone Status set for 11/23/15 is vacated and reset for 11/24/15 at 3:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. This Court will initiate the call. (S,Na) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/25/2015

34 ORDER. Phone Status held on 11/24/15. Court discussed with counsel the status of Phases 2 and 3 of the document production 30 . Further Phone Status set for 12/2/15 at 3:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel should confer with each other before the Phone Status and bring to Court's attention any issues which need Court guidance. Counsel shall use the same District Court conference line. (25 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/25/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 11/25/2015)

12/01/2015 35 Attorney Appearance Co-Counsel by Lisa Hammond Johnson ﬁled by on behalf of United States Customs and Border Protection. (Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 12/01/2015)

12/03/2015

36 ORDER. Phone Status held on 12/2/15. Counsel report parties have made good progress in agreeing on plan for meeting phased production schedule. Further Phone Status set for 1/4/16 at 4:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel should confer before the next Phone Status and bring to Court's attention by 12/31/15 at noon any issues which need Court guidance. Counsel shall use the same District Court conference line. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/3/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 12/03/2015)

12/07/2015 37 FILING ERROR: Filed prematurely. To be reﬁled once postal green card is received. Filer notiﬁed. Return of Service by Certiﬁed/Registered Mail executed upon United States

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

6/8

2/10/2018
12/23/2015 12/30/2015
02/02/2016 02/05/2016
02/24/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 06/01/2016
06/20/2016 06/24/2016 07/27/2016 07/28/2016

Northern District of Ohio
Customs and Border Protection on 12/7/2015 ﬁled on behalf of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic Related document(s) 1 . (Akbar, Amna) Modiﬁed on 12/8/2015 (M,L). (Entered: 12/07/2015)
38 Joint Motion to continue Status Conference ﬁled by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. (Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
39 ORDER granting Joint Motion to Continue Status Conference 38 . For good cause shown, the 1/4/16 Phone Status is vacated and reset for 1/19/16 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel shall use the same District Court conference line. Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/30/15.(S,Na) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
40 Joint Motion for Scheduling Order ﬁled by Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection. Related document(s) 31 . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
41 Order granting in part and denying in part 40 Joint Motion for Scheduling Order. See Order for deadlines. This Court will hold a hearing on Monday, July 11, 2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel shall be present in person. Counsel shall work this case as necessary to allow this case to be closed no later than July 27, 2016. Per the prior Scheduling Order, Defendant will ﬁle a Status Report with this Court with each phase of production. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/5/2016. (D,L) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
42 Joint Brief ﬁled by Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Lewandowski) (Akbar, Amna) Modiﬁed text on 2/25/2016 (M,L). (Entered: 02/24/2016)
43 Status Report ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. (Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
44 Attorney Appearance by Jody L. King ﬁled by on behalf of United States Customs and Border Protection. (King, Jody) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
45 Order re 42 Joint Letter Brief. Plaintiffs challenge CBP's redactions and request this Court order CBP to produce the documents without redaction. Plaintiff's request is granted in part. CBP is ordered to re-produce the documents in Categories 1 and 3 without redactions. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/1/2016. (D,L) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
46 Status Report ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. Related document(s) 41 .(Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
47 ORDER. Court reviewed Joint Status Report 46 . With agreement of counsel, hearing set for 7/11/16 is vacated. New dates for document production are approved, and counsel shall ﬁle a Dismissal by 7/27/16. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/24/16. (S,Na) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
48 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a)(1) ﬁled by United States Customs and Border Protection. (Johnson, Lisa) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
49 Order of Case Dismissal approving 48 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a) (1). Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/28/2016. (D,L) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

02/10/2018 19:55:39 PACER Login: hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

7/8

2/10/2018

Northern District of Ohio

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.70

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?184571730370157-L_1_0-1

8/8

 
 Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 1 of 7. PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

)

MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL CLINIC )

55 W. 12th Ave.

)

Case No. 14-2329

Columbus, Ohio 43201

)

)

and

)

)

ADVOCATES FOR BASIC

)

LEGAL EQUALITY, INC.

)

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

525 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300

)

Toledo, OH 43604

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. CUSTOMS AND

)

BORDER PROTECTION

)

FOIA Division

)

799 9th Street NW, 10th Floor

)

Washington, DC 20229-1181

)

)

Defendant.

)

)_____________________________________

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief, seeking the release of agency records requested by the Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic (“Civil Clinic”) and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. (“ABLE”) from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).
2. Plaintiffs seek to procure government records of significant public concern, in particular, records related to CBP Sandusky Bay Station’s policies and practices regarding the apprehension, arrest, and detention of individuals. The Sandusky Bay Station’s alleged use of racial and ethnic profiling has caused documented concern in the community, as

1

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 2 of 7. PageID #: 2
demonstrated by media attention and litigation addressing the practice. See Muñiz-Muñiz v. U.S. Border Patrol, 741 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2013); Brian Bennett, Immigration rights groups accuse officials of racial profiling, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 13, 2013; Jessica Cuffman, Federal legislators weigh in on border patrol allegations, SANDUSKY REGISTER, Jan. 31, 2013. The public has a right to review such practices and procedures in order to ensure that constitutional safeguards are respected and the rights of the most vulnerable are upheld.
3. Concerns about the practices and policies of the Sandusky Bay Station arise at a time when there is a growing national dialogue around racial profiling and immigration enforcement. See, e.g., Families for Freedom v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 797 F. Supp. 2d 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Matt Apuzzo, Federal inquiry of Ferguson police will include apparent racial profiling, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 4, 2014; see also Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., 2014 BL 102221, *11 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2014) (holding that local law enforcement agents violate the Fourth Amendment by detaining an individual solely for federal immigration purposes). As such, it is imperative that the American public be provided with sufficient information to understand the practical and legal implications of Sandusky Bay Station’s enforcement activities.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 3 of 7. PageID #: 3
5. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Plaintiff Civil Clinic is located in Columbus, Ohio and the Eastern Division of this Court.
Parties
6. Plaintiff Civil Clinic provides no-cost civil legal services to individuals in need. Civil Clinic also provides law students with the opportunity to develop lawyering skills under the careful supervision of law professors admitted to practice in Ohio.
7. Plaintiff ABLE is a non-profit regional law firm providing legal assistance in the areas of civil rights and poverty law to low-income individuals and groups in northwestern and western Ohio and to migrant farmworkers throughout all of Ohio.
8. Defendant CBP is an agency established in the Executive Branch of the United States Government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). The Sandusky Bay Station in Port Clinton, Ohio, is a component of CPB.
Factual Background
9. In 2008, CBP established the Sandusky Bay Station as a full-time presence in Ohio. Shortly thereafter, community members began to voice concerns about Border Patrol agents’ enforcement activities. These concerns included allegations of racial and ethnic profiling.
10. Across the country, allegations of CBP’s widespread use of racial and ethnic profiling have resulted in media attention and in litigation filed against the Border Patrol.
3

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 4 of 7. PageID #: 4
See, e.g., Muñiz-Muñiz v. United States Border Patrol, 741 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2013); Levi Pulkkinen, Anacortes artist: Border Patrol lied to justify racist arrest, SEATTLE PI, Jan. 1, 2014; Manuel Valdes, ACLU, immigrant groups to keep an eye on U.S. Border Patrol after profiling-case win, WASH. POST, Sept. 24, 2013; Kera Wanielista, Skagit County artist sues Border Patrol over detention, SKAGIT VALLEY HERALD, Jan. 2, 2014; William Yardley, In far Northwest, a new border focus on Latinos, N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 2012; Garcia De La Paz v. Coy. No. 12-00957 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 9, 2012); Sanchez v. United States Off. of Border Patrol, No. 12-05378 (W.D. Wash. filed Apr. 26, 2012); Vargas Ramirez v. United States, No. 13-cv-02325 (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 27, 2013); Villegas v. Garibay, No. 1301040 (N.D. Tex. filed Mar. 11, 2013); Letter from American Civil Liberties Union to Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Office of Inspector Gen. and Office of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (Jan. 15, 2014), available at…………………………………………………………………………………. http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/ACLU%20AZ%20Complaint%20re%20 CBP%20Checkpoints%20%202014%2001%2015.pdf.
11. In Muñiz, 741 F.3d 668, Plaintiff ABLE represents the Muñiz Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Defendant alleging that the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station was illegally profiling Hispanics for detentions, seizures, and arrests based on their being Hispanic. The lawsuit also alleged that the Border Patrol was encouraging local law enforcement agencies to illegally profile Hispanics and then turn these individuals over to the Border Patrol. During discovery in Muñiz, Plaintiffs obtained documents that they believe support these profiling allegations.
4

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 5 of 7. PageID #: 5
The FOIA Request
12. On August 18, 2014, the Civil Clinic and ABLE electronically submitted a FOIA Request (“the Request”) to CBP’s FOIA office for records regarding “Sandusky Bay Border Patrol’s practices and procedures relating to racial profiling.” (Attached hereto as Exhibit A). The Request was originally assigned a tracking number of CBP-2014-041422.
13. On September 9, 2014, CBP’s FOIA office informed Plaintiffs by email that the tracking number had been changed to CBP-OFO-2014-041422.
14. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, CBP has not responded to the Request. 15. Among the requested records are documents that will shed light on Sandusky CBP’s practices and procedures regarding the apprehension, arrest, and detention of individuals. The Request also calls for the release of records related to Sandusky CBP’s policies regarding racial profiling and collaboration with local law enforcement. 16. The Request seeks a waiver of search, review, and duplication fees on the basis that disclosure “is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). In the alternative, the Request seeks to limit fees to reasonable standard charges for document duplication because the “records are not sought for commercial use and the Request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
5

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 6 of 7. PageID #: 6
CBP’s Failure to Disclose Responsive Documents
17. Paragraphs 1-16 above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
18. CBP has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request in violation of the statutory deadlines imposed by FOIA, including those set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A).
19. Defendant has failed to perform an adequate search for responsive documents. 20. Defendant has wrongly withheld responsive agency records from Plaintiffs. 21. Plaintiffs have exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(C)(i). 22. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief compelling the release and disclosure of the requested agency records.
Requested Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that this Court: A. Order Defendant to immediately conduct a reasonable search for agency records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA Request; B. Order Defendant to immediately produce all responsive agency records; C. Order Defendant to waive all fees for processing Plaintiffs’ FOIA request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(3)(i) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A); D. Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E);
6

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/18/14 7 of 7. PageID #: 7

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

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amna A. Akbar Amna A. Akbar, Esq. (0088915) Kori Brady, Legal Intern Jason Luebbers, Legal Intern CIVIL LAW CLINIC Moritz College of Law 55 W. 12th Ave Columbus, Ohio 43210 (614) 292-5432 (phone) (614) 292-5511 (fax) akbar.20@osu.edu

/s/ Eugenio Mollo, Jr. Eugenio Mollo, Jr. (0081860) /s/ Mark Heller Mark Heller (0027027) ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC. 525 Jefferson Ave., Suite 300 Toledo, Ohio 43604 (419) 255-0814 (phone) (419) 259-2880 (fax) emollo@ablelaw.org mheller@ablelaw.org

7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DISTRICT

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL CLINIC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

Case No. 2:14-cv-2329 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s motion to transfer venue

(ECF No. 10), Plaintiffs’ motion in opposition (ECF No. 15), and Defendant’s reply

memorandum (ECF No. 17). For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and

transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

I. BACKGROUND

In August of 2014, Plaintiffs The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil

Clinic (“OSU”) and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (“ABLE”) filed a Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought

documents reflecting certain practices and procedures that Defendant United States Customs and

Board Protection (“CBP”) uses at its Sandusky Bay, Ohio location. Plaintiffs allege that these

policies and procedures will shed light on alleged racial and ethnic profiling, which is the subject

of a related lawsuit currently being litigated in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 2, 10–11 (citing Muñiz-Muñiz v. United States Border Patrol,

741 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2013)).

1

Plaintiff ABEL, located in Toledo, Ohio, represents the plaintiffs in the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation. Plaintiffs allege that, “[d]uring discovery in Muñiz, [they] obtained documents that they believe support [the] profiling allegations” that form the basis of their FOIA request. (Id. ¶ 11.) These profiling allegations allegedly support Plaintiffs’ request to waive the search, review, and duplication fees associated with their FOIA request.
CBP failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request within the statutory deadlines. Plaintiffs therefore filed this lawsuit seeking “injunctive relief compelling the release and disclosure of the requested agency records.” (Id. ¶ 22.)
Defendant now moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In support of its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff ABEL has been litigating the Muñiz-Muñiz case for more than five years in the Northern District, that the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation is “extensive, with more than 220 docket entries on a 40-plus page docket sheet,” (ECF No. 10, at PAGEID # 38), and that many filings in the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation (which allegedly are related to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request) are filed under seal subject to a protective order. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion.
II. DISCUSSION A. Standard Involved
Section 1404(a) provides, in pertinent part: “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The threshold question under § 1404(a) is whether the action “might have been brought” in the transferee court. Id.; see also Kay v. Nat’l City Mortg. Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 845, 849 (S.D. Ohio 2007).
2

Once this threshold inquiry is satisfied, the Court must consider the private interests of the parties, including the convenience to them and to potential witnesses. Kay, 494 F. Supp. 2d at 849. Plaintiff’s choice of venue, access to evidence, and other practical problems also are relevant to the Court’s analysis of this factor. Id.
The Court then must consider other public interest concerns, such as systemic integrity, fairness, and general interests of justice. Id. This factor encompasses the transferor court’s interest in resolving the issue, docket congestion, and familiarity with the controlling law. See id.; Moses v. Bus. Card. Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991); Jamhour v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 211 F. Supp. 2d 941, 948–49 (S.D. Ohio 2002).
The moving party bears the burden of establishing the need for transfer. Jamhour, 211 F. Supp. 2d, at 948 (citing Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. W. Publ’g Co., 679 F. Supp. 1455, 1457 (S.D. Ohio 1987)). After considering all relevant factors, the balance of convenience “should be strongly in favor of a transfer before such will be granted.” First Bank of Marietta v. Bright Banc Sav. Assocs., 711 F. Supp. 893, 896–97 (S.D. Ohio 1988).
B. Analysis The parties agree that the threshold issue under § 1404(a) is satisfied in this case. Because FOIA’s venue provision would have permitted Plaintiffs to bring this case in the Northern District of Ohio, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), the Court agrees with the parties and proceeds to analyze the remaining factors of § 1404(a). Regarding the second factor, the Court agrees with Defendant that the parties’ interests weigh in favor of transfer. Sandusky Bay is located in the Northern District of Ohio; hence the reason the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation is proceeding in that District. Two of the three parties to this litigation, as well as the documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, are located in the
3

Northern District of Ohio. Moreover, because the documents sought in Plaintiffs’ FOIA request contain potentially sensitive information, in camera review is a distinct possibility. Such review could require sending a representative from the Sandusky Bay station to the Southern District of Ohio, which could create unnecessary practical issues.
Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Plaintiffs argue that documents can be easily photocopied and transferred electronically, but do not dispute that their FOIA request is particularly voluminous such that photocopying and electronic delivery could create unnecessary expense. And although the Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ choice of venue is entitled to substantial weight, see Kay, 494 F. Supp. 2d at 850, that fact is not dispositive. That fact is especially unconvincing in this case given that Plaintiff OSU’s residence in the Southern District of Ohio appears to be the only connection between this forum and the subject matter of the litigation. See, e.g., Mead, 679 F .Supp. at 1466.
Other problems exist if this case remains in the Southern District. Plaintiffs allege that their FOIA request relates to documents received during discovery in the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation, which are subject to a protective order in that case. Practically speaking, Judge Zouhary (the presiding judge in Muñiz-Muñiz) is better equipped to interpret the protective order and decide when and how Plaintiffs can use documents from Muñiz-Muñiz in pursuing their FOIA request. Judge Zouhary also is better equipped to determine whether Plaintiffs are using their FOIA request to serve the public interest, as they claim, or as a strategic weapon to obtain information for use in the Muñiz-Muñiz litigation.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this case presents different legal issues from the issues in Muñiz-Muñiz; however, a quick reading of Plaintiffs’ complaint reveals significant
4

factual overlap between the two cases. Transfer therefore promotes judicial economy and mitigates the practical problems associated with the protective order in Muñiz-Muñiz.
Regarding the third and final factor of the § 1404(a) analysis, the Court again agrees with Defendant that the public interest weighs in favor of transferring this case. Plaintiffs allege that their FOIA request will reveal racial and ethnic profiling in communities located in the Northern District of Ohio. Individuals in those communities clearly have the most vested interest in accessing the documents Plaintiffs seek. Indeed, in alleging that the requested records are “of significant public concern,” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2), Plaintiffs cite Muñiz-Muñiz and an article from the Sandusky Register.
In light of the foregoing, the balance of convenience weighs strongly in favor of transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 10) and transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost_______________ GREGORY L. FROST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

 
 Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 296

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

The Ohio State University Moritz College of )

Law Civil Clinic, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

United States Customs and Border

)

Protection,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 3:15 CV 833 Judge Jack Zouhary
ORDER ON PHASED PRODUCTION PLAN

NOW COME Plaintiffs, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., and the Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection FOIA Division, by Steven M. Dettelbach, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and Guillermo J. Rojas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, to provide the Court a production schedule for the above-captioned matter, which the parties request the Court so order. Proposed Phased Production Plan
1. On June 22, 2015, this Court ordered counsel to file a joint status report outlining an agreed plan and time frame for document production in response to Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act Request of August 18, 2014, (Ex. A of Complaint (Doc. 1) (Original Request)) regarding the practices of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Sandusky Bay Station (SBY).

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 2 of 6. PageID #: 297
2. The Parties have agreed to narrow the Original Request, and to a phased production plan, to allow for timely production and resolution of this matter.
3. Categories and Subcategories refer to the numbered provisions of the Original Request. The language of the Original Request remains binding except where outlined below.
4. Plaintiffs have agreed to remove the following Categories and Subcategories from the Original Request: Categories 4, 8, 12, 7a and 7e, and 15d.
5. At the end of each of the three phases of production, the Government shall file a status report with the Court, advising of its completion of document production on the applicable Categories, and its progress on the remaining Categories. The status report shall be filed with the court on the same day that the particular production is due.
6. With respect to Phase 1 and 2, the Government shall produce a Vaughn index describing what information has been withheld and redacted, and identifying the specific FOIA exemption(s) invoked to justify the withholdings and redactions, pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). With respect to Phase 3, the Government shall file a Vaughn index describing what information has been withheld and redacted, and identifying specific FOIA exemption(s) invoked to justify the withholdings and redactions, only for records generated by the agreed upon search methodology and requested to be produced by Plaintiffs.
7. Phase 1: No later than 75 days from the date of this plan, or October 6, 2015, whichever is later, the Government shall produce non-exempt and non-excludable documents responsive to Categories 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15abc, as outlined below:
2

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 3 of 6. PageID #: 298
a. Categories 6, 10, 11, and 15abc are to be produced in accord with the language of the Original Request.
b. Category 9 is limited to Production of a blank and filled Forms I-1026 Unproductive Vehicle Stop.
c. Category 13 is limited to the evaluation form or forms used in evaluating the Patrol Agent in Charge of SBY (and all such stations), including blank and complete forms, as relevant to SBY.
d. Category 14 is limited to documents specific to SBY. 8. Phase 2: No later than 150 days from the date of this plan, or December 21, 2015,
whichever is later, the Government shall produce documents responsive to Categories 1, 2, 3, and 5, as outlined below:
a. Categories 1, 2, 3, and 5 are to be produced in accord with the language of the Original Request, with the exception that Category 2 now includes the Daily Apprehension Log for individuals apprehended by SBY, not limited to those individuals for whom I-213s were issued.
b. One in ten documents responsive to Category 1 will be sampled, in accord with a sampling method to which the parties agree.
9. Phase 3: The Government shall make an initial production of documents responsive to Categories 7b, 7c, 7d, and 7f, as outlined below: a. The search for responsive documents will encompass emails from 16 SBY employees, accounting for all supervisory employees employed at SBY from 2008 to August 18, 2015, generated during the time period each individual
3

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 4 of 6. PageID #: 299
worked at SBY. The names of the 16 supervisory employees will be provided to Plaintiffs by separate correspondence. b. The Parties have agreed to search the applicable email accounts using search terms to be chosen by the Parties. The parties will agree to search terms by August 10, 2015. c. No later than August 17, 2015, the Government will inform the Plaintiffs of the date by which it will complete its search of emails and retrieve the results. This date will be incorporated into this plan by reference herein. d. Within 30 days of retrieving the search results, the Parties will reach an agreement on the date by which Phase 3 documents will be produced and so notify the Court. This date will be incorporated into this plan by reference herein. e. The Parties will advise the Court of progress on Phase 3 on or before the November 23, 2015, Phone Status Conference scheduled by the Court per its July 22, 2015, Order. 10. In accordance with the Court’s direction at a status conference on July 23, 2015, with respect to the determination of processing fees under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.11, the Parties agree that the issue of whether Plaintiffs bear the responsibility for paying processing fees, or whether they are entitled to a waiver or reduction in fees, will not be waived and remains a live issue in controversy. However, consistent with the Court’s direction, the processing of Plaintiffs’ request will not be delayed pending a determination by the Court or Parties on the issue of processing fees. In accordance with the Court’s direction, any processing fees
4

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 5 of 6. PageID #: 300

incurred by the Government prior to such a determination are not waived for purposes of determining the amount of fees chargeable to Plaintiffs. Neither have Plaintiffs consented to, or waived their ability to contest, any processing fees by moving forward with this plan.

/s/Amna Akbar Civil Law Clinic Moritz College of Law 55 W 12th Avenue #255P Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 292-5432/Fax 5511 akbar.20@osu.edu Attorney for The Ohio State University
STEVEN M. DETTELBACH UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Guillermo J. Rojas Guillermo J. Rojas Assistant United States Attorney Registration No. 0069882 Four Seagate, Suite 308 Toledo, Ohio 43604-2624 Phone 419-259-6376/Fax 6360 Guillermo.Rojas@usdoj.gov

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Eugenio Mollo, Jr. Eugenio Mollo, Jr. Mark Heller ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC. 525 Jefferson Ave., Suite 300 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Phone: (419) 255-0814/Fax (419) 259-2880 emollo@ablelaw.org mheller@ablelaw.org

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jack Zouhary Judge Jack Zouhary U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE July 24, 2015
5

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 31 Filed: 07/24/15 6 of 6. PageID #: 301
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 23, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt.
/s/ Guillermo J. Rojas Guillermo J. Rojas Assistant U.S. Attorney
6

 
 Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/20/16 1 of 3. PageID #: 363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL CLINIC, et al.
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Defendant.

) CASE NO.: 3:15CV833 ) ) ) ) JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to this Court’s Order (ECF No. 41), Defendant hereby submits the following status report.
On June 10, 2016, Defendant completed production of Phase 3, which yielded one responsive document. CBP is not withholding any Phase 3 documents pursuant to any applicable FOIA exemptions, and therefore preparation of a Vaughn index was unnecessary. The parties agree that there are no issues that require a hearing before this Court.
On June 1, 2016, this Court issued an Order requiring Defendant “to re-produce the documents in Categories 1 and 3 without redactions.” (ECF No. 45, PageID # 362.) Pursuant to this Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 41), Defendant is required to review and re-produce the relevant Phase 2 documents within 30 days of any Court ruling finding Phase 2 redactions inappropriate. Therefore, Defendant currently is required to re-produce the Phase 2 documents in Categories 1 and 3 by July 1, 2016.
CBP personnel have been working to complete the Phase 3 review of documents, and therefore have been unable to complete the re-production of the Phase 2 documents, which will

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/20/16 2 of 3. PageID #: 364
require CBP to review narrative portions of forms that may include information that must be unredacted. The CBP employee responsible for re-producing the Phase 2 documents is out of the office on previously scheduled leave from June 20, 2016 until July 5, 2016. Defendant’s counsel also will be out of the office on previously scheduled leave from June 27, 2016 until July 5, 2016. Defendant therefore respectfully requests that it be permitted to re-produce the Phase 2 documents to Plaintiffs on or before July 22, 2016. Defendant’s counsel has consulted with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who has agreed to this requested production date. In addition, this production date complies with the Court’s July 27, 2016 deadline for closing this case.
Respectfully submitted, CAROLE S. RENDON Acting United States Attorney Northern District of Ohio
By: /s/ Lisa Hammond Johnson Lisa Hammond Johnson (#0061681) Assistant United States Attorney United States Court House 801 West Superior Ave., Suite 400 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 216-622-3679 - Telephone 216-522-4982 - Fax Lisa.Hammond.Johnson@usdoj.gov
2

Case: 3:15-cv-00833-JZ Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/20/16 3 of 3. PageID #: 365 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this June 20, 2016, the foregoing Status Report was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Lisa Hammond Johnson Lisa Hammond Johnson Assistant U.S. Attorney
3