JS44 (Rev. 3/99)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS -44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form. approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. is required for the use
of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants; Ecuadorian Civic Center; JUNTA for Progressive Action, Inc.; Unidad Latina En Accion; National Immigration Project.
(b) li'airfiQl.d COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST USTEDPlAINTlFF
(EXCEPT IN U.S, PLAINTIFF CASES)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT ......._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

NOTE:

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLy)
IN lAND CONDEMNA110N CASES. USE THE lDCAl10N OF THE TRACT OF LAND IN\iOLVED.

(c) ATTORNEYS (FIR'" NAME. ADDRESS, IW) TELEPHONE NUMBER}

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Jerome N. Frank Legal Servtces Organization P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520-9090 (203) 432-4800

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(pLACE AN 'X'IN ONE BOl( ONLy) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PlACE AN 0l('1N ONE BOX FOR PLAlNl1FF

(For Diversity Cases Only)

AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

PTF DEF

PTF OEF

a 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

a 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

Citlzen of This State

al a1 In~orated or princ~ Place a4 a4 of usiness In This tate

'lila U.S. Government
Defendant

a 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State a2 a2
Citizen or Subject of a a 3 a3 Foreign Country

Inco~orated and Principal Place a s as of usiness In Another State

Foreign Nation

as as

l'l NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN ·X" IN ONE BOX ONLy)

CONTRACT
a 110 Insurance a 120 Marine a 130 Miller Act a 140 Negotiable Ins1n.rnent a 150 FlecOllefY 01 Overpayment
& Eni<:J<cement of Judgment a 151 Medk:are Act
[) 112 ~=~aul1ed
(Exci. llet.....-sl
a 153 Recowry of 0Yelpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
a 110 Stockholders'SUts a 180 OIher Contract o 115 Contract Product Liability
REAL PROPERTY
a 210 Lend Condemnatioo o 220 Fored_ [) 230 Renll..ea$e & Ejectment a 240 ToII$ to !..and
[) 245 Tort Product Uability
a 2tO All OIhar Real Properly

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAl INJURY

a 310 Airpl_

a

315

A U

i

=_ ilily

Product

a 320 Assautt. Ubel &
Slender

a 330 Federal Employ_'
Uabillty

0340 Matine a 3411 Marine Produ~
Uabilily
o 350 Motor Vehicle
a 355 Motor llehicle
Product Uability

a 380 Other PefsOnallnjury

PERSONAl INJURY

a 382 Pe!sOnaI Injury-

= : Med. MalplllC:tice

a 3115

U~;-

a _ Asbestos Personal

Injury Product Uability

PERSONAL PROPERTY
Lending oa 370 Ott!er Fraud 371 TI1JIh In [) 380 O1her Personal
Property Damage
a 385 Property Damage
Product Uabilily

CIVIL RIGHTS
a 441 Voting a 442 Employment a 443 Housing!
Accommodations
a 444 Welfare [) 440 Other Civil Rights

PRISONER PETInONS
a 510 Motions to _ Sentence
HABEAS CORPIJS; a 530 General a 535 Death Penalty o 140 tvlandatnt.Js & 0Ih.... a !i5O Civil Rights a 555 Prison Condition

a 110 Agricu1tu19 a t20 Other Food &Drug a G25 0nJg Relall!d Se!zuIe
01 PrOperty 21 usc 881 a tI30 Uquor Laws a 140 R.R. & ThJck a IJ50 Airline Regs, a lIIIO Occupational
SafeIy/He8l1ll
a lIIIO Other
LABOR
a 710 Fair Labor Stendetd$
Act
o 720 LaborlMgmt Relations
a 730 i."=.::~g a 740 Railway I.Abof Act
a 7SO Other I.Abof Utigalion
o 791 EmpL Ret. Inc, Security Act

BANKRUPTCY a 422 Appeeol28 usc 158 [)4.23~~~7

PROPERTY RIGHTS
[) t20 CopyrightS
a 830 Patent a IMO liademail<

SOCIAL SECURITY

o o

8_111

HIli. (1395ff)
Black I..lIng

(923)

[) IIe3 OIWC/OlWW (400(gl) [) _ SSID Tille XVI

[) !MIS ASI (405(g1l

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

a 810 Tax... (U,S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
o 871 IRS - Third Party 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
a _ StaI8 Reapportionment a 410 Antitrust a 430 llenksandBanking a 450 Commerce/ICC Rateelero. a 450 Oepor1atioo a 410 Rack_Influenced and
Comlpt Organizations
a 810 Selective S_ce a aso Securi1Jes/Commodities/
Exchange
a 87!5 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410
[) 891 Agric:ultural AcI$
a 1\112 Eoonomic Stablli%.8lion Act a 893 Environmental Matterll a _ Energy Allocation Act
11895 Freedom of Information Act
a BOO Appeal 01 Fae Detennination
Und.... Equal Access to Justice
a 150 Constitutionality of
Stale StaIutes
[) no Other SlaMooy Actions

V. ORIGIN 121-1 Original
Proceeding

o 2 Removed from
State Court

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLy)

[) 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

a -4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from a 5 another district
(specily)

a II Mullidistrict Litigation

Appeal to District Judge from
a 7 Magistrate
Judgment

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(CITE lliE u.s, CML STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FIlING IW) WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE,
00 NOT CITE JURISDICTiONAl STATIJTES UNLESS DlVERSI"lY.}
5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B)

Defendant failed to disclose and release, and to affirmatively disclose, responsive records.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
a UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: 0 YES

B NO

VIII.RIFEALNATYED CASE(S) (See instructions): JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DOCKET NUMBER

S

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ AMOUNT ___________ A~VlNGI~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MAG. JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANBURY AREA COALITION FOR THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS; EDUADORIAN CIVIC CENTER OF DANBURY; JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC.; UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCION; and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, INC.,
Plaintiffs, v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF By responding to discriminatory requests from local officials for federal immigration enforcement, Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and its component, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), knowingly and willingly participated in a campaign by the Mayor and Police Department of Danbury, Connecticut to target and harass immigrant and Latino communities. Specifically, on September 19, 2006, upon the request of Danbury officials, ICE and the Danbury Police Department carried out an undercover "sting" operation directed at day-laborers who gather in Kennedy Park, a public park in Danbury. An undercover officer, dressed to appear as a building contractor, lured workers into his vehicle and drove them to a site where eleven workers were arrested and eventually placed in removal proceedings. 1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the disclosure and release of agency records

improperly withheld from Plaintiffs by Defendant United States Department of Romeland Security ("DRS") and its component ICE.
2. Plaintiffs seek to compel the release of records on a matter ofpublic concern, namely, ICE's immigration enforcement policies, practices, and activities in and around Danbury, Connecticut, including ICE's cooperation with local elected officials and the local police department to accomplish such enforcement. In particular, Plaintiffs seek to compel the release ofrecords regarding an undercover sting operation carried out on September 19,2006 in Danbury, Connecticut against day-laborers.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims and personal jurisdiction over Defendant agency pursuant to 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)(4)(B). This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346. 4. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.c. §§ 1391(e) and 1402(a)(1), as all but one ofthe complainants reside in the District of Connecticut.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants ("DACORlM") is an unincorporated association that advocates on behalf of immigrants' rights in and around Danbury, Connecticut. The principal place ofbusiness ofDACORlM is in Danbury, Connecticut. 6. Plaintiff Ecuadorian Civic Center of Danbury, Connecticut ("Ecuadorian Civic Center") is a non-profit organization that provides social services and cultural activities, and advocates for the rights of Ecuadorian immigrants in and around Danbury, Connecticut. The office and principal place of business of the Ecuadorian Civic Center is in Danbury, Connecticut.
2

7. Plaintiff JUNTA for Progressive Action, Inc. ("JUNTA") is the oldest Latino, community-based non-profit organization in New Haven, Connecticut. Its mission is to provide services, programs and advocacy that improve the social, political and economic conditions of the Latino community in Greater New Haven, while nurturing and promoting its cultural traditions as it builds bridges with other communities. The office and principal place of business of JUNTA is in New Haven, Connecticut.
8. PlaintiffUnidad Latina en Accion ("ULA") is an unincorporated association that advocates on behalf of immigrants' rights in and around New Haven, Connecticut. The office and principal place of business ofULA is inNew Haven, Connecticut.
9. Plaintiff National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Inc. ("NIP") is a non-profit membership organization of immigration attorneys, public defenders, legal workers, grassroots advocates, and others working to secure fair and even-handed enforcement of the immigration laws. The office and principal place of business of NIP is located in Boston, Massachusetts.
10. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is the federal agency responsible for securing the nation's borders, including by enforcing immigration laws and managing the immigration process. ICE, a component ofDHS, is responsible for enforcing federal immigration statutes. DHS is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
STATEMENT OF FACTS Immigration Enforcement in Danbury under Mayor Mark Boughton 11. Danbury was first settled by English colonists in 1685, in an area already home to the Paquioque Native Americans. The city of Danbury was incorporated in 1889. Danbury experienced growth in the 19th century, when it was known for its hat-making industry. In the
3

late 20th century, Danbury saw an influx of immigrants from Brazil, and in more recent years, from other Latin American countries, especially Ecuador. The August 2006 U.S. Census lists Danbury's popUlation at 78,736. Unofficial counts estimate that there are currently 5,000 Ecuadorians and 15,000 Brazilians living in Danbury. Danbury was voted #1 "city to live in" by Money Magazine in August 1988, mostly due to low crime, good schools, and location. Danbury is currently one of the fastest-growing cities in Connecticut.
12. Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, first elected in 2001, has focused his attention on the issue of immigration during the past several years. Mayor Boughton has been a leading advocate of strict immigration enforcement and of local government and police involvement in immigration enforcement. Through state and national lobbying efforts as well as the implementation of local policies directed at immigrant communities, Mayor Boughton has taken several affirmative steps to limit new immigration in Danbury, to enforce federal immigration laws, and to drive out immigrants already living in Danbury.
13. In a letter dated December 17,2004 addressed to Eduardo Aguirre, Jr., Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, Mayor Boughton stated that "Danbury Police and zoning enforcement officials have been aware of an influx of undocumented aliens for the past several years." Mayor Boughton requested additional federal enforcement of immigration laws in order to reduce Danbury's population of undocumented immigrants.
14. In a letter to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal dated April 14, 2005, Mayor Boughton requested that the Attorney General enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with ICE that would deputize state or local polic,e officers to enforce federal immigration laws, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1257(g). State officials declined to pursue this course.
4

15. In a subsequent letter to Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, Mayor Boughton stated that he had nevertheless instructed Danbury Police Chief Alan Baker to prioritize the resources of the Danbury Police Department ("DPD") to offer assistance with future federal and state immigration enforcement activities in Danbury.
16. In November 2005, Mayor Boughton helped found the group Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform. According to the group's website, the purpose of the group is to encourage immigration enforcement and "to lobby the President and Congress for assistance to local governments in managing the tremendous challenges posed by illegal immigration."
17. Over the past two years, Mayor Boughton and the DPD have also systematically targeted immigrant communities through numerous policies including discriminatory enforcement of city ordinances, such as housing code and vehicle registration regulations, shutting down neighborhood volleyball games, encouraging police harassment of day laborers, encouraging direct police enforcement of civil immigration laws upon stopping motorists for moving violations, and requesting from U.S. Senators and Representatives, as well as from ICE, federal assistance in enforcing immigration laws.
18. With Mayor Boughton's support, code inspectors have discriminatorily enforced Danbury's fire and building codes and parking regulations against Danbury's immigrant and Latino communities. For example, in a nighttime sweep on July 23, 2005, code enforcement officers shut down seven sites that serviced the Ecuadorian community's neighborhood volleyball games.
19. In Apri12005, with Mayor Boughton's support, the Danbury Common Council considered an ordinance banning "repetitive outdoor group activities." The purpose of this
5

ordinance was to shut down the Ecuadorian community's volleyball games. Mayor Boughton also requested that the DPD aggressively police the volleyball games to achieve the same end.
20. The DPD has staged a number oftraffic stops to investigate the immigration status of Latino drivers. For instance, on October 11,2006 police stopped a Latino driver for failing to signal a tum. DPD arrested the driver and turned him over to ICE based on an outstanding deportation order.
21. The DPD has also repeatedly harassed day laborers in Kennedy Park as they gather to solicit employment. Police officers have threatened to cite or arrest the day laborers for interfering with the flow of traffic around Kennedy Park. This harassment culminated with the undercover sting operation carried out on September 19, 2006. The DPD incident report states that the DPD called ICE for assistance with the situation in Kennedy Park, in apparent retaliation for the use of the public park as a gathering spot.
22. Most recently, the Mayor announced a campaign to crack down on Danbury residents whose vehicles are registered out of state. Mayor Boughton claims that out-of-state registrations cheat the city out of tax dollars. However, the community is acutely aware that this campaign is actually designed to target immigrants, some of whom find it easier to register a vehicle out of state, especially in Massachusetts.
23. The repeated communications from Mayor Boughton to ICE, whether made directly to the agency or indirectly via Connecticut's Senators and congressional delegation, together with the widespread media accounts of the Mayor's initiative to rid Danbury of certain immigrants, rendered ICE fully aware of its role in the Mayor's campaign.
24. The release of the requested records will help clarify the extent onCE's role in Danbury's implementation ofthese policies.
6

25. This information is of great public interest because the Defendant's role in the enforcement of immigration laws within the context of Danbury's larger campaign targeting immigrants has created fear among immigrant and Latino communities, has placed immigrants and Latinos at imminent risk of unlawful arrest, and has deterred immigrants and Latinos from exercising their Constitutional rights. The Arrest of Eleven Men on September 19,2006
26. On September 19,2006, eleven men were arrested in Danbury, Connecticut, and were ultimately taken into ICE custody. ICE served those men with Notices to Appear, charging each as being removable from the United States.
27. The arrests were made as part of an undercover sting operation targeting day-laborers in Danbury, Connecticut. The sting involved an undercover officer dressed as a building contractor who drove a vehicle to Kennedy Park, a known day-laborer site in Danbury, to solicit workers to demolish a fence. The undercover officer transported the eleven men to the purported worksite in an unmarked vehicle. Once at the worksite, the laborers were handcuffed and were notified that they were under arrest.
28. Information regarding the ICE-DPD sting operation on September 19,2006 is of public concern. Plaintiffs seek to determine whether this sting operation was carried out in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.
29. Plaintiffs have provided advice and support to those men who were arrested during the sting operation, including arranging for undersigned counsel to represent men arrested in the sting and as advocates for immigrants' rights, assisting in that representation, organizing public education events and peaceful demonstrations, and genefally advocating against future ICE-DPD
7

collaboration. Plaintiffs have an interest in ensuring that the rights of immigrant communities are not violated. Plaintiffs' FOIA Requests to ICE
30. By letter to ICE dated October 24, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request for various records relating to the arrests that took place on September 19,2006, as well as records relating to immigration enforcement in Danbury generally. A copy of that letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A. This letter was received by the agency on October 25,2006.
31. To date, Plaintiffs have received no correspondence from ICE regarding this FOIA request.
32. To date, ICE has not provided the records requested by Plaintiffs in their FOIA request, notwithstanding the FOIA's requirement of an agency response within twenty (20) working days.
33. Plaintiffs have exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to their FOIA request to ICE.
34. ICE has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiffs. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELEIF:
Defendant DRS Failed to Disclose and Release Records Responsive to Plaintiff's Request·
35. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 34 as if repeated and reincorporated herein.
36. ICE, a component ofDHS, has violated Plaintiffs' rights to DHS records under 5 U.S.C. § 552.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELEIF: . Defendant DRS Failed to Affirmatively Disclose Records
Responsive to Plaintiff's Request
8

37. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 -
34 as ifrepeated and reincorporated herein.
38. Defendant's failure to make its records available to the public violates 5 U.S.C. § 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(2).
Requested Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
2) Order Defendant to disclose the requested records in their entireties and to make copies
available to Plaintiffs;
3) Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action;
4) Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in this action as provided by 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
5) Grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Dated December 14,2006 New Haven, Connecticut
Respectfully Submitted,
By:---:-+-_.L.-_ _ _--'-L---:-_ __ Stephen Wizner, Esq. Michael Wishnie, Esq. Geri Greenspan, Law Student Intern Stacie Jonas, Law Student Intern Simon Moshenberg, Law Student Intern Justin Cox, Law Student Intern Michael Tan, Law Student Intern JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 Phone: (203) 432-4800 Counsel for Plaintiffs
9

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANBURY AREA COALITION FOR THE RIGHTS )

OF IMMIGRANTS; EDUADORIAN CIVIC CENTER )

OF DANBURY; JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE

)

ACTION, INC.; UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCION;

)

and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF

)

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, iNC.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

V.

)

) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

) Defendant. )

__________________________________________________

Civil No.: 3:06CV1992(RNC) October 24, 2007

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to Defendant's emergency motion for a protective order precluding Plaintiffs from deposing Richard McCaffrey, Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer with U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE" or "the Agency"), and another witness from DHS to be designated under Rule 30(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the Defendant's motion and enter an order compelling DHS and Mr. McCaffrey to comply with the depositions noticed and subpoenaed, respectively, by Plaintiffs. In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set an expedited schedule for DHS's proposed summary judgment motion.

1

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 16
BACKGROUND This is an action arising under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"). Plaintiffs submitted a request to DHS for certain records on October 24, 2006 —nearly a full year ago — and received no response within the statutory time period. $Docket Entry #1, Compl. Exh. A, FOIA Request dated Oct. 24, 2006. On December 14, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint seeking to compel the release of the requested documents.1 $ The lawsuit has progressed slowly, however, because DHS has repeatedly engaged in dilatory tactics. DHS requested, and out of courtesy Plaintiffs agreed to, two initial extensions of time to respond to the Complaint. See Docket Entries ## 9 and 11. DHS finally responded to Plaintiffs' nine-page Complaint with a groundless motion to strike certain paragraphs and subheadings, see Docket Entry # 13, Mot. to Strike, thereby extending their time to answer, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Chief Judge Chatigny denied the motion to strike, but DHS still has not yet filed an Answer, though its time to do so is long overdue. Plaintiffs eventually moved for a Preliminary Injunction to compel DHS to respond to the portion of the Plaintiffs' request specifically related to the September 19, 2006 undercover sting operation. See Docket Entry #21. In May, 2007, Chief Judge Chatigny held two telephonic conferences, during which DHS stated that it had located no records other than the individual "A files" for the men arrested on September 19, 2006. Because DHS had failed to locate numerous records ordinarily created in an operation such as the September 19, 2006 arrests, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs sought to compel the release of records on a matter of public concern, namely ICE immigration enforcement activities in Danbury, Connecticut, including ICE's cooperation with local elected officials and the Danbury Police Department. In addition to records relating generally to these topics, Plaintiffs sought to compel the release of records regarding a particular undercover sting operation targeting day laborers, which was carried out on September 19, 2006 in Danbury. Docket Entry #1, Compl. ¶T 26-29. Defendant has thusfar produced redacted versions of the requested alien files ("A files") for nine of the eleven day laborers arrested on September 19, 2006. This motion, and the depositions themselves, relate only to (1) operational records related to the September 19, 2006 operation and (2) other records related to ICE's immigration enforcement in Danbury. This motion and the depositions do not address the search for or production of the individual A files.
2

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 16
objected that DHS had violated its statutory obligation under FOIA to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records. See Docket Entry #29, Status Report of Sept. 24,2007, Ex. F, Letter to Ms. Perkins from Michael Wishnie and Geri Greenspan dated May 23, 2007. Despite Plaintiffs' efforts to resolve the "reasonable search" issue over the summer, DHS refused to produce a detailed and non-conclusory declaration that would establish the adequacy of its search. See Docket Entry #29, Status Report of Sept. 24, 2007, Ex. H, Letter to Michael Wishnie and Geri Greenspan from Ms. Perkins dated August 7 2007.
Plaintiffs seek the depositions that are the subject of Defendant's present motion2 in an effort to resolve the issue of the lawfulness of DHS 's search for responsive records, which by statute must be a "reasonable" search. These two narrow depositions would likely provide information that would facilitate the settlement of the issue without additional intervention from this Court. Specifically, the information obtained through the depositions would either establish the reasonableness of the agency's search, or would allow Plaintiffs to identify additional searches that could be expected to locate responsive records. Plaintiffs would be amenable to a settlement of the search dispute wherein DHS would perform the additional searches and produce any responsive, non-exempt records located as a result. In fact, this is precisely what occurred in a parallel proceeding under the Connecticut Freedom of Information statute in which Plaintiffs sought records from the Danbury Police Department related to the same September 19, 2006 arrests: Plaintiffs questioned Danbury police officials under oath in a state administrative proceeding, identified additional searches that had not been performed but were likely to yield
2 Plaintiffs subpoenaed the deposition of ICE Officer Richard L. McCaffrey, a Supervisory Special Agent who was present at the September 19, 2006 arrests in Danbury, and would therefore have personal knowledge as to (1) the records typically created in such an operation and (2) the records actually created in the September 19, 2006 operation. In addition, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of a DHS employee to be designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (b)(6), who could testify as to (1) DHS recordkeeping systems and (2) the actual search conducted by the Agency in response to Plaintiffs' original FOIA request. See Memo in Support of Def. 's Emergency Motion for Protective Order, Ex. F.
3

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 16
further responsive records, and swiftly settled the action with an agreement by Danbury to undertake the limited additional searches identified through the testimony. Wishnie Dee!., Ex. L, email from Elizabeth Simpson to Victor Perpetua dated April 20, 2007.
In the instant case, by letter dated September 7, 2007, DHS informed Plaintiffs that it had concluded its search and that, in addition to the individual A files for nine of the men arrested on September 19, 2006, DHS had identified eight pages responsive to the remainder of Plaintiffs' original request.3 See Docket Entry #29, Status Report of Sept. 24, 2007, Ex. B, Letter to Michael Wishnie from Catrina M Pavlik-Keenan dated Sept. 7, 2007. Because the agency has now concluded its search, there is no longer any reason to delay the resolution of Plaintiffs' challenge to the lawfulness of the DHS search.4
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs' need for the requested documents remains urgent. Nine men arrested in the September 19, 2006 sting operation are in removal proceedings before Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus in Hartford, Connecticut. Some of the men who were arrested on September 19, 2006 are members of the Plaintiff organizations, and as such, Plaintiffs have an interest in ensuring that those men are able to competently defend themselves in immigration court. The defense the men are raising essentially requires a showing that the federal and local law enforcement agents involved in the arrests acted unlawfully; the records sought by Plaintiffs are essential to this defense.
In addition, ICE continues significant enforcement operations in Danbury, where immigration remains a contentious local issue. See Wishnie DecI., Ex. G, "ICE Arrests 6 Immigrants in Danbury"; Ex. H, "Candidates for Danbury Mayor Spar." The Plaintiffs in
One of these pages, an ICE press statement mentioning Danbury but not the September 19, 2006 arrests, was produced, and the remaining seven pages were withheld pursuant to various statutory exemptions.
Additionally, Attorney Perkins verbally represented to Plaintiffs on September 13, 2007 that Defendant could produce a Vaughn index within a couple of weeks. However, to date, Defendant has not produced a Vaughn index describing the seven pages withheld.
4

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 5 of 16
particular, and the public at large, have a substantial interest in ensuring that ICE enforcement operations in Danbury are lawful and comply with the agency's own detailed procedures.
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Discovery in This Case.
It is undisputed that Defendant DHS has a statutory obligation to undertake a reasonable
search for records responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA request. See 5U.S.C. §' 552(a)(3)(C)(B), (C);
Founding Church of Scientology of Washington v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979). "Reasonableness" is a question of fact, and courts have not hesitated to order limited discovery to test an agency's factual claim that it has satisfied the statutory command and conducted an adequate search. DHS claims to have located a total of only eight pages responsive to Plaintiffs' request for operational records regarding ICE activities in Danbury. DHS cannot evade its statutory obligation to conduct an adequate search, and limited discovery is fully appropriate in this case.
a. FOIA Plaintiffs are Entitled to Discovery.
Plaintiffs in FOIA cases are entitled to discovery, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully applicable. See, e.g,, Local 3, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 845 F.2d 1177, 1179 (2d Cir. 1988) ("Discovery in a FOIA action is permitted in order to determine whether a complete disclosure of documents has been made and whether those withheld are exempt from disclosure."); Founding Church of Scientology of Washington v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824, 833 n.75 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (in FOIA suit, explaining "interrogatories and depositions are especially important in a case where one party has an effective monopoly on the relevant information.").
5

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 6 of 16
Discovery in FOIA cases is particularly appropriate in determining the reasonableness of an agency's search for responsive records. See. e.g., Giza v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 628 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1980) ("[Discovery in a FOJA action] is directed at determining whether complete disclosure has been made, e.g., whether a thorough search for documents has taken place, whether withheld items are exempt from disclosure."). See also Founding Church of Scientology, 610 F.2d at 836.("[I]f, in the face of well-defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials, an agency can so easily avoid adversary scrutiny of its search techniques, the [Freedom of Information] Act will inevitably become nugatory.").
A fundamental principle in civil cases is that "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment," Schlagenhaufv. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-115 (1964) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947); see also Ratliffv. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 2003) (same). The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, does nothing to alter this fundamental principle.
As a general matter, discovery is broad, "encompass[ing] any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 1992), citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Freedom of Information Act cases are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warrant no exception to the discretionary nature of discovery. See, e.g., Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir. 1993) (disposition of motions for discovery and leave to take a deposition were "within the discretion of the court.").
Contrary to the assertions of Defendant, a showing of bad faith on the part of the agency is not required to justify discovery, even after an agency has moved for summary judgment and
6

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 7 of 16
has submitted affidavits. Where the agency's affidavits describing the search are insufficiently detailed and conclusory, a court may allow discovery to determine the reasonableness of the search. See Long v. U.S. Department of Justice, 10 F.Supp.2d 205, 210 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (granting discovery because the defendant's "affidavits do not reasonably outline the method of the search to a degree which shows that all likely responsive files were searched, therefore, discovery is needed."); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2006 WL 1518964, *3 (D.D.C. 2006) (ordering the deposition of four federal officials to allow plaintiff to investigate adequacy of federal agency's FOIA search).
b. The Limited Discovery Sought by Plaintiffs is Warranted Plaintiffs in the instant case seek only limited discovery as to the reasonableness and adequacy of the search conducted by DHS in response to their underlying FOJA request. In such circumstances, discovery is appropriate and justified. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2006 WL 1518964, *6 (D.D.C. 2006) (ordering discovery in a FOIA case where warranted by the facts of the case); Litton Industries, Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 75, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (allowing expedited depositions where they "would fulfill the purposes of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by (1) expediting the disposition of the litigation; (2) establishing case control so as to avoid protracting the litigation through lack of management; (3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities; and (4) facilitating settlement of the case."). In this case, Plaintiffs seek limited discovery in the interest of a speedy resolution of the case and in order to facilitate the settlement of the case. Plaintiffs have reason to believe that, according to the agency's own internal protocols and practices, other documents in addition to those contained in the A files are likely to exist.
7

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 8 of 16
First, ICE's internal procedures for undercover sting operations require the agents involved to produce a Memorandum for Approval of Undercover Sting Operation and a Closing Report for Undercover Sting Operation. See Wislmie Dccl., Ex. A, "INS Authorization Procedures for 'Sting' Operations"; Ex. B, "Attorney General's Guidelines on iNS Undercover Operations." It is undisputed that in this case, an undercover law enforcement agent posing as a contractor invited day-laborers in Danbury into his vehicle and drove them to a parking-lot where they were arrested and eventually turned over to ICE for removal proceedings. Wishnie Decl., Ex. B, Department of Homeland Security's Response Brief.5 It is implausible that ICE would run a substantial undercover operation but create none of the records required by its longstanding agency rules.
Second, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE, Julie Myers, has stated that Fugitive Operations Teams generally produce an "operational plan" and are required to submit that plan to headquarters for written approval. See Wishnie Decl., Ex. D, Letter from Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary of DHS, to Christina DeConcinic, National Immigration Forum, dated July 6, 2007. The ICE agents who participated in the September 19, 2006 Danbury arrests were members of the ICE Fugitive Operations Team, yet ICE claims that its search has failed to identify either a pre-operational plan or headquarters approval, as routinely required.
Third, when conducting their investigations, ICE agents routinely use a number of standard forms. Plaintiffs' underlying FOIA request specifically referenced a number of these forms, yet ICE's search has apparently failed to locate y such record for py ICE enforcement operation in Danbury in the time period applicable to Plaintiffs' request. It is simply implausible that a reasonable search would fail to locate any of the following:
The identity of the vehicle's driver is unknown to Plaintiffs, but whether the driver was a Danbury Police officer, as ICE contends, Wishnie Dec., Ex. B, or the sting was an ICE operation, as Danbury police officials claim, Wishnie Dec., Ex. F, is immaterial, because ICE's guidelines for undercover operations apply in either circumstance.
8

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 9 of 16

a. A G- 1 66C Memorandum of Investigation form, which records significant

conversations, leads, and other investigatory developments. See Wishnie Dccl., Ex. K,

Deposition of William Riley.6 The planning and investigation stages of an operation may be

reconstructed from these forms. See, Wishnie Deci., Ex. C, letter from Michael Chertoff

Secretary of Horn eland Security, to Senator Christopher Dodd, at 3 (explaining the investigation

and planning process of another ICE raid).

b. A Form G-123A, on which ICE initial investigatory leads, or "tips," are records.

See Wishnie Deci., Ex. J, In re: Herrera Priego, at 2; Ex. K, Deposition of William Riley

(providing examples of actual G-123A forms).

c. A Form G-600, or case-opening form for immigration investigations. $

Wishnie Decl., Ex. K, Deposition of William Riley. d. A Form G-164, or case-closing form for immigration investigations.

Wishnie

Dccl., Ex. K, Deposition of William Riley. In their search, ICE claims not to have located any G-

123A, G-166C, G-164, or G-600 forms, or their functional equivalent.

The September 19, 2006 arrests were the result of an undercover sting operation,

instigated by a tip from Danbury police to ICE regarding the presence of immigration law

violators in Danbury. Thus, it was the type of operation in which the above-described documents

were likely to have been produced.

Further, Danbury officials assert that the operation was planned and executed by ICE.

Detective Lieutenant James Fisher testified under oath at a hearing of the Connecticut Freedom

The form numbers listed herein refer to standard investigatory forms used by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), whose primary enforcement functions have been assumed since March 1, 2003 by the Bureau of Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). ICE continues to use many INS forms, however, and Plaintiffs are unaware that ICE has abandoned use of these.
9

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 10 of 16
of Information Commission that ICE agents, not Danbury Police Officers, planned and made the arrests. See Wishnie Dccl., Ex. F, Testimony of James Fisher. The Mayor of Danbury, Mark Boughton, and Danbury Police Chief Al Baker have said publicly that the arrests were the result of an ICE operation and that Danbury was not involved in the planning or execution of the operation. See Wishnie Deci., Ex. I, "Danbury 11' lawsuit filed."
Contrary to the Defendant's assertion on this motion, Plaintiffs do not rely on either the interim Declaration of Ms. Taylor, Docket Entry #29, Status Report of Sept. 24, 2007, Ex. E, or the draft Vaughn Index provided to Plaintiffs, Docket Entry #29, Status Report of Sept. 24, 2007, Ex. A, to make an assertion of bad faith on the part of the agency. Rather, Plaintiffs challenge the reasonableness of the agency's search based on the fact that the search has now concluded and records that are likely to exist were not located during the search. To the extent, however, that statements by senior Danbury elected and police officials (regarding the primacy of ICE's role in the September 19, 2006 arrests) contradict ICE's own statements (insisting that few responsive records have been identified because the arrests were carried out by Danbury police), this Court may reasonably conclude that the record contains evidence of bad faith in the conduct of this FOIA search.
Fundamentally, Plaintiffs seek discovery at this stage in order to quickly resolve this action, as an alternative to lengthy briefings and hearings on motions and cross-motions for summary judgment. For instance, in order to meet their burden in a motion for summary judgment and be granted a FOIA exception, defendants are required to submit detailed and nonconclusory affidavits. See SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding that "[ijn order to establish the adequacy of a search" sufficient to prevent discovery, "agency affidavits must be ... relatively detailed and non-conclusoiy, and
10

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 11 of 16
submitted in good faith.") (internal quotation omitted); National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 680 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (holding that conclusory arid generalized allegations are unacceptable as means of sustaining the burden of nondisclosure). Given the limited nature of the dispute, the pressing nature of the interests involved, and the already overlong duration of this suit, it is strongly in the interest ofjudicial economy to resolve the dispute by discovery at this stage, rather than protracted and unnecessary motions practice.
Plaintiffs submitted their FOIA request nearly a full year ago. At every step, Plaintiffs have diligently sought to ensure that this case progressed in an orderly fashion. However, nearly a year after Plaintiffs submitted their initial request, DHS still manages to prolong the resolution of this matter. The delays in this case have prejudiced the Plaintiffs by preventing them from aiding their members in their ongoing proceedings in immigration court or by subjecting ICE enforcement operations in Danbury to the public scrutiny that FOIA compels. The records sought by Plaintiffs are essential to that goal.
II. Defendant has not Shown Good Cause Why Discovery should not Proceed. a. Standard of Review.
A protective order may be issued only where the movant demonstrates good cause for protection of the information or material sought. Jerolimo v. Physicians for Women, P.C., 238 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Coim. 2006) (citations omitted). Good cause must be shown through "a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements." Id. (quotations and citation omitted). Even if the movant establishes good cause, the court must still "balance the countervailing interests to determine whether to exercise discretion and grant the order." Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
11

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 12 of 16
In this case, the balance of the countervailing interests weighs heavily in favor of allowing discovery. Plaintiffs have a statutory right to obtain the documents which they requested, and Plaintiffs cannot be satisfied that they have received such records until the agency satisfies its statutory burden of proving the reasonableness of its search. Plaintiffs seek limited discovery in the form of two depositions, which will be neither overly burdensome nor unduly prejudicial to DHS. DHS has not shown with the specificity required that there is good cause to grant a protective order in this case.
b. The Depositions Sought Do Not Impose an Undue Risk of Prejudice Defendant overstates the risk of "undue prejudice" that DHS would face in a limited deposition as to Plaintiffs' FOJA request. "The Second Circuit has yet to define the term 'undue prejudice.' Elsewhere it has been construed to mean 'improper or unfair treatment' rising to a level somewhat 'less than irreparable harm." Faulkner v. Verizon Communs., hc., 156 F. Supp. 2d 384, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citations omitted). It would be neither improper nor unfair to allow the depositions sought by Plaintiffs, and the depositions would certainly not result in undue prejudice to either DHS or Mr. McCaffrey. The depositions sought by Plaintiffs are proper. Plaintiffs seek from the depositions precisely what they have been seeking for many months: to establish the reasonableness of the Agency's search for records responsive to their original FOIA request —made nearly one year ago. Officer McCaffrey is one of only three ICE officers known to be present at the undercover sting operation on September 19, 2006, and therefore one of only three individuals who would have personal knowledge as to what pre- and post-operation ICE documents were created. Further, all three ICE officers with personal knowledge of documents created are named as defendants in Barrera. Id. ¶J 266-297. For Plaintiffs to have meaningful access to the
12

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 13 of 16
information in the possession of DHS regarding the agency's search, one of those three officers must testify regarding (1) the records typically created in an operation such as that which resulted in the September 19, 2006 Danbury arrests and (2) the records actually created by the agency in connection with that operation.
Defendant DHS would not suffer undue prejudice as a result of the depositions sought by Plaintiffs. First, DHS is not itself a defendant in Barrera v. Boughton, 3:07cv1436(RNC). Second, the topics to be covered in the proposed deposition —the records created in connection with ICE enforcement activities in Danbury, including the arrests of September 19, 2006, and the agency's search for such records — are material to this FOIA dispute, but do not particularly bear on the claims and defenses at issue in the Bivens claims in Barrera. Third, Agent McCaffery would not be prejudiced because Plaintiffs have agreed to postpone the depositions pending the resolution of Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, thereby allowing Agent McCaffery sufficient time to obtain private counsel to represent him at the deposition. Thus, it is entirely speculative to suggest that Agent McCaffery will suffer prejudice as a result of the deposition.
Finally, if anything, it would be improper and prejudicial to Plaintiffs if they were denied the sort of limited discovery typically allowed in "reasonable search" disputes in FOIA cases, simply because one deponent was also a defendant in a d?fferent action brought by dfferent plaintiffs raising dfferent claims. DHS's assertions that Mr. McCaffery's testimony in this case would prejudice him in the Barrera case are mere speculation. Officer McCaffrey is but one of more than twenty-five defendants in Barrera, an action brought by plaintiffs different from Plaintiffs herein.
13

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 14 of 16 III. Plaintiffs Move the Court to Enter an Order to Compel Defendant to Attend and
Cooperate with the Depositions Plaintiffs Have Sought As set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery in general, discovery is warranted on the particulars of the case at bar, and the limited discovery sought by Plaintiffs is justified in the interest of judicial economy and of the speedy resolution of this case without recourse to lengthy briefing and the submission of detailed affidavits. Plaintiffs therefore move the court to enter an order to compel Defendant to attend and cooperate with the depositions they have sought. IV. Plaintiffs Move the Court to Set a Deadline by Which Defendant Must File Any
Motion for Summary Judgment. In the alternative, should this Court grant Defendant's emergency motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court set an expedited briefing schedule and require DHS to file a Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying affidavits and Vaughn indices.
14

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 41 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 15 of 16

CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant's emergency motion for a protective order and instead enter an order compelling compliance with the duly noticed and subpoenaed depositions. In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court set an expedited briefing schedule.

Respectfully Submitted,

By:

Is!

Michael Wishnie, Esq. ct27221

Christopher Lasch, Esq.

Justin Cox, Law Student Intern

Geri Greenspan, Law Student Intern

Thom Ringer, Law Student Intern

Michael Tan, Law Student Intern

JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES

ORGANIZATION

P.O. Box 209090

New Haven, CT 06520-9090

Phone: (203) 432-4800

Counsel for Plaintiffs

15

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 117 Filed 09/28/11 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANBURY COALITION FOR THE RIGHTS :

OF IMMIGRANTS, ET AL.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

V.

:

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

:

HOMELAND SECURITY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

CASE NO. 3:06CV1992 (RNC)

ORDER The parties have reported that this action has been settled in full. Rather than continue to keep the case open on the docket, the Clerk is directed to close the file for administrative purposes without prejudice to reopening on or before December 31, 2011. If the parties wish to file a stipulation of dismissal (for approval by the court or simply for inclusion in the court's file), they may do so on or before December 31, 2011. The date set forth in this order may be extended pursuant to a motion filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. So ordered. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 28th day of September 2011.

/s/ RNC Robert N. Chatigny United States District Judge

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 113 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

DANBURY AREA COALITION FOR

)

THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil No.: 3:06CV1992(RNC)(DFM)

STIPULATION FOR COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS REGARDING FEES AND COSTS
WHEREAS, by letter dated October 24, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted requests to the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”), seeking records relating to the arrest of a group of day-laborers in Danbury, Connecticut on September 19, 2006 and to immigration enforcement in Danbury generally;
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland of Security (“DHS”), of which ICE is a component, seeking the release of such records;
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for summary judgment filed by DHS be denied without prejudice, ECF No. 97, and on March 16, 2010, this Court approved and adopted this recommended ruling, ECF No. 98;
WHEREAS, the men arrested on September 19, 2006, brought a civil rights action, Barrera et al. v. Boughton et al., No. 3:07-cv-1436-RNC (D.Conn.), which has now been settled and fully resolved between all parties;

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 113 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 5

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have indicated their intent to file an application for attorneys’ fees

and other costs incurred in connection with this litigation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E);

and

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to resolve without further litigation their disputes recording

the records sought and Plaintiffs’ application for fees and costs;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, as follows:

1. The Parties do hereby agree to settle and compromise each and every claim,

credit, demand, and right, whether known or unknown, directly or indirectly relating to the

Plaintiffs’ request for records, as well as for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in

this litigation, under the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation for Compromise

Settlement and Release of Claims (hereinafter “Stipulation”).

2. The Plaintiffs seek no further relief in this action, and consent to the Court’s

dismissal with prejudice of their claims.

3. In consideration for the release of Plaintiffs’ claims for records and regarding

attorneys’ fees and costs, the United States shall pay to the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services

Organization the sum of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00), which sum Plaintiffs and their

counsel agree to accept as full settlement of any and all claims, credits, demands, rights and

causes of action for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this action.

4. Payment of the Sixteen Thousand Dollars referenced in paragraph 3 above will be

made by government wire transfer to the trust account of Plaintiffs’ attorney the Jerome N. Frank

Legal Services Organization (“LSO”), Yale Law School. The settlement proceeds will be

electronically transferred as follows:

Financial Institution:

[REDACTED]

2

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 113 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 5

Account Name:

[REDACTED]

Account Number:

[REDACTED]

Account Type:

[REDACTED]

ABA Routing Number: [REDACTED]

Tax ID Number:

[REDACTED]

5. Plaintiffs and their guardians, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and

each of them, hereby expressly agree to accept the payment above-described in paragraph 3 in

full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims, credits, demands, rights, and causes of

action relating to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating this case, which they may now

have or hereafter acquire against Defendant, the United States of America, its agencies,

representatives, agents, servants, and employees, past or present, in their official or individual

capacities, for fees and costs relating to or incurred in the litigation of the above-captioned

action.

6. This Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of Claims is not in any

way intended to be, and should not be construed as, an admission of liability on the part of the

United States of America, its agencies (including but not limited to the Department of Homeland

Security), representatives, agents, servants, and employees, and it is specifically denied that they

are liable to the Plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, for the claims in this litigation,

including for attorneys’ fees and costs. This settlement is entered into by all Parties for the

purpose of compromising disputed claims and for avoiding the expenses and risks of further

litigation.

3

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 113 Filed 06/03/11 Page 4 of 5

7. The Parties agree that this Stipulation, including all the terms and conditions of this compromise settlement, may be made public in their entirety, and the Parties expressly consent to such release and disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
8 The persons signing this Stipulation warrant and represent that they possess full authority to bind the entities, agencies and organizations on whose behalf they are signing to the terms of the Stipulation.
9. This Stipulation represents the entire agreement between the Parties with regard to the matters set forth herein and no other agreements, understandings or representations, oral or otherwise, bind the Parties except as herein expressly set forth in writing and signed by all Parties.
10. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted,

PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANT

/s/

_/s/

MICHAEL J. WISHNIE

DOUGLAS P. MORABITO

Supervising Attorney

Assistan

t U.S. Attorney

Attorney Bar # ct 27221

Attorney Bar # ct 20962

P.O. Box 209090

157 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06511

New Haven, CT 06510

Telephone: (203) 432-4800

Telephone: (203) 821-3700

Fax: (203) 432-1426

Fax: (203) 773-5373

Email: Michael.Wishnie@yale.edu Email: Douglas.Morabito@usdoj.gov

So ordered this ____ day of ____________, 2011.

____________________________ United States District Judge
4

Case 3:06-cv-01992-RNC Document 113 Filed 06/03/11 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 3, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Michael J. Wishnie Counsel for Plaintiffs
5

 
 “DANBURY 11” SUE CITY OFFICIALS, ICE AGENTS OVER UNLAWFUL ARRESTS
Current and former Latino residents of Danbury allege pattern of unlawful and discriminatory law enforcement
September 26th, 2007
DANBURY, CT – Nine of the eleven day laborers arrested in Danbury last September and now popularly known as the “Danbury 11” will hold a press conference on Wednesday, September 26th at 1:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 80 Newtown Road, Danbury, Connecticut, to announce the filing of a civil rights lawsuit against Danbury city officials, the city itself, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents. In this lawsuit, the men allege that the defendants violated their constitutional rights during an undercover sting operation that unlawfully targeted the day laborers who gather at Kennedy Park in downtown Danbury.
Juan Barrera and other laborers were waiting at Kennedy Park on the morning of September 19, 2006, hoping to find work for the day. Each climbed into a vehicle driven by a man whom they thought had hired them to perform a day’s work demolishing a fence, but who was in fact an undercover Danbury police officer. When the men arrived at the purported worksite, they were seized, handcuffed, and arrested by Danbury Police officers, assisted by ICE agents—all without a single question being asked.
The laborers were charged with civil immigration violations and shipped to various detention centers around the country. Immigrant communities and organizations across Connecticut rallied in support of the men, and together managed to free nine of them on bond. Those nine men are Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Their immigration cases are ongoing.
“They treated me like a violent criminal,” said Juan Barrera, one of the Danbury 11. “All I was trying to do was find work. I get out of the van to help demolish a fence, and all of a sudden I’m surrounded, shoved against the van and told not to move.”
The lawsuit describes the arrests of the Danbury 11 as only one part of Danbury’s ongoing discriminatory and illegal attempts to enforce federal immigration law. In the year since the Danbury 11 were arrested, the city has continued its unlawful enforcement of immigration law by arresting Latino drivers after stopping them on the pretext of minor traffic infractions. The police use these stops to investigate the immigration status of the drivers through the National Crime Information Center database, and then arrest them for alleged civil immigration violations.
One of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Danilo Brito Vargas, was a victim of this practice. He was arrested by the Danbury Police in February 2007 while driving with his wife to a laundromat. He was separated from his family, shuffled between immigration detention facilities for over a month, and ultimately deported to Ecuador. In this lawsuit, he claims that Danbury police officers have no authority to engage in civil immigration arrests, and that targeting Latino drivers in this way is an unconstitutional form of racial profiling.

“These arrests go far beyond what local police are allowed to do in the immigration context,” said Geri Greenspan, a law student intern with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of Yale Law School, which represents the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Harassing day laborers, targeting Latino drivers and trolling the NCIC database for immigration records isn’t just illegal – it’s bad police work and bad policy.”
Since entering office in 2001, Mayor Boughton has encouraged police and municipal authorities to target immigrants through selective enforcement of housing codes and traffic laws, and by enacting local ordinances regulating parades and public demonstrations.
“There are problems with the immigration system in our country,” said community activist Franklin Peña. “But racial profiling isn’t going to solve the problem. And the people who run the city are just adding fuel to the fire by violating the constitutional rights of immigrants who live here.”
Several of the day laborers pursuing the current lawsuit against Danbury and ICE officials will attend Wednesday’s press conference at 1:00 p.m.

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 1 of 13
CLOSED, DFM, EFILE, MOTREF, REFDIS
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−01992−RNC

Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants et al v. US Dept of Homeland Security Assigned to: Judge Robert N. Chatigny Referred to: Judge Donna F. Martinez Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/14/2006 Date Terminated: 09/28/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch Yale Law School −POB PO Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520−9090 203−779−9401 Email: clasch@suffolk.edu TERMINATED: 07/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: michael.wishnie@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Wizner Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization PO Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520−9090 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: stephen.wizner@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Wizner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 2 of 13

Plaintiff Junta for Progressive Action Inc

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Wizner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Unidad Latina En Accion

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Wizner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen Wizner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant US Dept of Homeland Security

represented by Douglas P. Morabito U.S. Attorney's Office−NH 157 Church St., 25th floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−821−3700 Fax: 203−773−5373 Email: Douglas.Morabito@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 3 of 13
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa E. Perkins U.S. Attorney's Office−HFD 450 Main St. Room 328 Hartford, CT 06103 860−947−1101 Fax: 860−760−7979 Email: lisa.perkins@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/14/2006
12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/19/2006 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
01/19/2007
01/19/2007 02/02/2007
02/07/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against US Dept of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number N020085), filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion.(Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/12/2007.,Discovery due by 6/15/2007.. Signed by Clerk on 12/14/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
3 Electronic Filing ORDER. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/14/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Junta for Progressive Action Inc. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Junta for Progressive Action Inc. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
Summons Issued as to US Dept of Homeland Security. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
Summons Reissued as to US Dept of Homeland Security. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa E. Perkins on behalf of US Dept of Homeland Security (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
9 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 1, 2007 to Respond to Complaint 1 Complaint, by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
10 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: granting 9 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 1, 2007 to Respond to 1 Complaint, Signed by Clerk on 1/19/07. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
Answer deadline updated for US Dept of Homeland Security to 2/1/2007. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
11 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until February 8, 2007 to respond to 1 Complaint, by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
12 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: 11 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until February 8, 2007 to respond to 1 Complaint. Granted, nunc pro tunc. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 2/6/07. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 4 of 13

02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007
02/20/2007
02/21/2007
02/23/2007 03/10/2007 04/12/2007
04/26/2007
04/30/2007 05/03/2007

Answer deadline updated for US Dept of Homeland Security to 2/8/2007. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
13 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Immaterial Allegations by US Dept of Homeland Security.Responses due by 3/1/2007 (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
14 Memorandum in Support re 13 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Immaterial Allegations filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Wishnie on behalf of all plaintiffs (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
16 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Complaint served on U.S. Attorney for District of Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security on December 19, 2006, filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
17 Memorandum in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Immaterial Allegations filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Geri Greenspan# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Affidavit of Service# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond)(Wishnie, Michael) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2007 (Blue, A.). (Entered: 02/20/2007)
18 "DOCKETED IN ERROR" Memorandum in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Immaterial Allegations filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 2/23/2007 (Blue, A.). (Entered: 02/21/2007)
Docket Entry Correction re 18 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, was docketed incorrectly &pdf was sealed and added as an attachment to 17 memorandum. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
19 REPLY to Response to 13 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint, Immaterial Allegations filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 03/10/2007)
20 NOTICE of Law Student Intern Appearance re: Fatima Rojas, Brett Digman, Leonel Villavicencio, Dan Kesselbrenner, Franklin Pena, by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion (Attachments: # 1 Notice part 2)(Blue, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion.Responses due by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' FOIA Request to ICE# 3 Exhibit Tracking Receipt for Plaintiffs' FOIA Request to ICE# 4 Exhibit First Marshall Letter# 5 Exhibit Second Marshall Letter# 6 Exhibit Greenspan Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction# 7 Exhibit Moshenberg Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Wishnie, Michael) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2007 (Blue, A.). (Entered: 04/26/2007)
Docket Entry Correction re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, corrected pdf added. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Chatigny : Status Conference held on 5/3/2007. A telephone status Conference is set for 5/8/2007 at 04:30 PM before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Calendar to follow.(40 minutes)(Court

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 5 of 13

05/03/2007
05/09/2007
05/09/2007 07/18/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/07/2007 09/24/2007
09/26/2007 09/30/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007
10/03/2007

Reporter C. Thompson.) (Walker, J.) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
23 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Status Conference set for 5/8/2007 at 04:30 PM before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Counsel will initiate the telephone conference to chambers at 860−240−3659 with counsel for all parties on the line. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
24 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Status Conference moved from 5/8/07 to 5/9/2007 at 01:00 PM before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Atty. Perkins will initiate the conference call to chambers at 860−240−3659 with counsel for all parties on the line. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Chatigny : Telephone Status Conference held on 5/9/2007. (15 minutes)(Court Reporter D. Warner.) (Walker, J.) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
26 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/9/2007 before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Court Reporter: Darlene A. Warner. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
28 ORDER denying 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/6/07. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 9/26/2007. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
27 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/3/2007 before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. Court Reporter: Corinna F. Thompson. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
29 STATUS REPORT by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
30 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez to supervise discovery, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/26/07. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
34 ENDORSEMENT ORDER denying 13 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/30/07. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
31 MOTION to Appear as Law student intern by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants re: Thomas Ringer (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/3/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/02/2007)
32 MOTION to appear as law student intern re: Thomas Ringer by Junta for Progressive Action Inc (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/3/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/02/2007)
33 MOTION to appear as law student intern re: Thoomas Ringer by Unidad Latina En Accion (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/3/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/02/2007)
Docket Entry Correction re 31 MOTION for Leave to Appear, 33 MOTION for Leave to Appear, 32 MOTION for Leave to Appear: corrected for proper motion relief (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
35 MOTION LEAVE FOR STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE re: Thom Ringer by Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury.Responses due by 10/24/2007 Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/03/2007)
36 MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE re: Thomas Ringer by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc.Responses due by 10/24/2007 Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/4/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/03/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 6 of 13

10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/12/2007
10/15/2007
10/15/2007 10/24/2007
11/07/2007 11/07/2007
11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007

Docket Entry Correction re 36 MOTION for Leave to Appear, 35 MOTION for Leave to Appear : corrected motion relief (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
37 ENDORSEMENT ORDER RE: 31 Motion to Appear ; 32 Motion to Appear ; 33 Motion to Appear ; 35 Motion to Appear ; 36 Motion to Appear by Law Student Intern Thomas Ringer. Approved. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 10/3/07. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
38 NOTICE of Appearance on behalf of all plaintiffs Attorney CHRISTOPHER N. LASCH. by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. &all plaintiffs (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/5/2007 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 10/04/2007)
Docket Entry Correction re 38 MOTION for Leave to Appear on behalf of all plaintiffs Attorney CHRISTOPHER N. LASCH.: terminated pending motion, corrected filers, added attorney, edited text. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
39 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order by US Dept of Homeland Security.Responses due by 11/2/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
40 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion: Defendant's motion for protective order (doc. # 39 ) is scheduled for oral argument before Judge Martinez on 11/21/07 at 10:00 a.m. in the East Courtroom, U.S. District Court, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 10/15/07. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 39 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order. Motion Hearing set for 11/21/2007 10:00 AM in East Courtroom, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Donna F. Martinez (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
41 Memorandum in Opposition re 39 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Michael Wishnie# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition as to 39 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order until November 14, 2007 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
43 ORDER: At the request of counsel, the oral argument on defendant's motion for protective order (doc. # 39) before Judge Martinez is re−scheduled to Tuesday, 11/27/07 at 10:15 a.m. in the East Courtroom, U.S. District Court, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT. PLEASE NOTE NEW DATE &TIME. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/7/07. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
44 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc (doc. # 42 ) defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time until 11/14/07 to file a reply brief to plaintiff's motion for protective order (doc. # 39 ). Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/15/07. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 39 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order. Responses due by 11/14/2007 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
45 Minute Entry. Motion Hearing held on 11/27/2007 before Judge Donna F. Martinez : taking under advisement 39 Motion for Protective Order filed by US Dept of Homeland Security ;35 minutes(Court Reporter S. Bowles.) (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
46 AFFIDAVIT SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION Signed By MICHAEL WISHNIE filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 7 of 13

11/27/2007
11/27/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007
12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/24/2007 12/24/2007
12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/09/2008

Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
47 ORDER: The defendant's motion for protective order (doc. # 39 ) is granted because discovery at this juncture of the proceedings is premature. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Export−Import Bank, 108 F. Supp. 2d 19, 25 (D.D.C. 2005) ("[D]iscovery in a FOIA action is 'generally inappropriate.'... Discovery may be appropriate when the plaintiff can raise sufficient question as to the agency's good faith in processing or in its search. See, e.g., Carney v. United States Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994).") The defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 12/14/07. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 11/27/07. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 12/14/2007 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 21, 2007 to File Dispositive Motion by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
49 Memorandum in Opposition re 48 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 21, 2007 to File Dispositive Motion filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
50 ORDER: The defendant's motion for extension of time until 12/21/07 in which to file a motion for summary judgment (doc. # 48 ) is granted. Further requests for extension of time will be viewed with disfavor. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/14/07. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 12/21/2007 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
51 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 24, 2007 to file dispositive motion by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 12/24/2007)
52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by US Dept of Homeland Security.Responses due by 1/14/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, Taylor Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B, Vaughn 1st release, # 4 Errata Ex. C, Vaughn 2d release, # 5 Exhibit Ex. D, Vaughn 3rd release)(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 12/24/2007)
53 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: 51 MOTION for Extension of Time nunc pro tunc until December 24, 2007 to file dispositive motion. Granted. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/26/07. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 12/24/2007, nunc pro tunc (Blue, A.) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
54 MOTION for Leave to File Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed Facts by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed Facts)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
55 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: 54 Motion for Leave to File Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed Facts. Granted. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/2/08. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion.Responses due by 1/30/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 8 of 13

01/10/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008
01/21/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008 01/29/2008 01/30/2008

Support Memorandum of Law, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 11 Exhibit I to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 12 Exhibit J to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 13 Exhibit K to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 14 Exhibit L to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 15 Exhibit M to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 16 Exhibit N to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 17 Exhibit O to Declaration of Michael Wishnie, # 18 Exhibit P to Declaration of Michael Wishnie)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/11/2008: # 19 Exh. E Corrected pdf) (Blue, A.). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
57 MOTION for Extension of Time until 1/21/2008 to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
58 ORDER granting (doc. # 57 ) plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time until 1/21/08 in which to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/11/08. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 1/21/2008 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
59 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery filed by Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/11/08. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez (Blue, A.) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
60 Memorandum in Opposition re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas Ringer, # 2 Exhibit A to Ringer Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Ringer Declaration)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/21/2008)
61 MOTION for Leave to File Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
62 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: 61 Motion for Leave to File. Granted. Plaintiffs are hereby directed to e−file their Local Rule 56(a) statement. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/28/08. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
63 Statement of Material Facts re 61 MOTION for Leave to File Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement MOTION for Leave to File Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
64 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery until February 8, 2008 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 01/30/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 9 of 13

02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/08/2008 02/11/2008
02/12/2008
02/12/2008 02/13/2008
02/19/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/21/2008
02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/25/2008

65 ORDER granting (doc. # 64 ) defendant's Motion for Extension of Time until 2/8/08 in which to file a response to (doc. # 56 ) plaintiff's motion to stay consideration of sefendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/6/08. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery. Responses due by 2/8/2008 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
66 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply tp Plaintiff's Opposition as to 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment until February 19, 2008 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
67 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery until February 19, 2008 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
68 ORDER: The defendants' unopposed motion (doc.# 67 ) for an extension of time until 2/19/08 in which to respond to the plaintiff's "motion to stay consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment pending completion of discovery" (doc. #56) is granted. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/12/08. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery. Responses due by 2/19/2008 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
69 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE RE: 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Granted. So ordered. Responses due by 2/19/2008, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 2/12/08. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
70 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery until February 20, 2008 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
71 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 56 MOTION to Stay &to file Reply to Response to 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 2/20/2008. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/20/08. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery, 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 2/20/2008 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
72 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery until February 21, 2008 by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
73 Memorandum in Opposition re 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
74 REPLY to Response to 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
75 ORDER granting 72 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery and 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment.

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 10 of 13

02/25/2008 03/06/2008 06/30/2008 07/10/2008 07/14/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/16/2008 07/18/2008
07/18/2008
08/11/2008
08/11/2008

Responses due by 2/21/2008. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/25/07. (Martinez, Donna) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery, 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 2/21/2008 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
76 REPLY to Response to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
77 ORDER requiring supplemental affidavit in relation to 56 MOTION to Stay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Completion of Discovery. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 6/30/08. (Turner, M.) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
78 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 14, 2008 to File Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 77 Order by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 15, 2008 to File Supplemental Declaration by US Dept of Homeland Security. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
MOTIONS 78 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 14, 2008 to File Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 77 Order, 79 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 15, 2008 to File Supplemental Declaration REFERRED to Judge Donna F. Martinez. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
80 ORDER: The defendant's 78 Motion for Extension of Time and 79 Second Motion for Extension of Time are granted. The supplemental declaration required by the court's June 30, 2008 order (doc. #77) shall be filed on or before July 15, 2008. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/15/08. (Turner, M.) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
81 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT re 77 Order Signed By Catrina Pavlik−Keenan filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
82 MOTION for Extension of Time until 8/15/2008 to File Additional Submission 77 Order by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
83 NOTICE by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion re 82 MOTION for Extension of Time until 8/15/2008 to File Additional Submission 77 Order MOTION for Extension of Time until 8/15/2008 to File Additional Submission 77 Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
84 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until August 22, 2008 by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
85 NOTICE re 84 Motion for Extension of Time by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 8/12/2008 (Blue, A.). (Entered:

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 11 of 13

08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/22/2008
08/29/2008
10/20/2008 11/18/2008 01/29/2009 02/25/2009 03/27/2009 04/02/2009 06/30/2009
07/02/2009 02/25/2010 03/16/2010 07/01/2010

08/11/2008)
86 ORDER granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motions for extension of time (doc. ## 82 , 84 ) in which to file a submission in response to the defendants' supplemental declaration (doc. #81.) Plaintiffs shall file their response by 8/22/08. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/15/08. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses to declaration due by 8/22/2008 re: 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
87 Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson)(Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
88 ORDER: The plaintiffs' motion to stay (doc. # 56 ) consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. #52) is denied as moot. The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. See doc. #87. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 8/29/08. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
89 NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
90 RESPONSE re 89 Notice of Additional Authority filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
91 NOTICE by US Dept of Homeland Security of Intent to Supplement the Record (Perkins, Lisa) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
92 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas P. Morabito on behalf of US Dept of Homeland Security (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
93 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez for recommended ruling re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 3/27/09. Motions referred to Donna F. Martinez(S−Blue, A.) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
94 AFFIDAVIT re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by US Dept of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
95 MOTION for Christopher N. Lasch to Withdraw as Attorney by National Immigration Project of Natl Lawyers Guild Inc, Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Ecuadorian Civic Ctr of Danbury, Junta for Progressive Action Inc, Unidad Latina En Accion. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
96 ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting 95 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Granted. So ordered. Attorney Christopher Nelson Lasch terminated. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 7/2/09. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
97 Recommended ruling recommending that the defendant's motion 52 for summary judgment be denied without prejudice, 9 pages. Objections due by 3/11/2010. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/25/10. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
98 ORDER approving and adopting 97 Recommended Ruling, denying without prejudice 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 3/16/2010.(Thompson, S.) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
99 Joint MOTION for briefing schedule by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants.Responses due by 7/22/2010 (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2010)

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 12 of 13

07/06/2010 07/12/2010
11/03/2010 11/03/2010
11/03/2010
11/22/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 12/01/2010 02/03/2011 02/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 05/04/2011 05/05/2011

100 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Donna F. Martinez for a ruling on the Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule 99 . Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 7/6/10. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
101 ORDER granting 99 Motion for Briefing Schedule. By no later than 8/26/10, defendant Department of Homeland Security shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment. By 10/4/10, plaintiffs shall file their opposing papers. By 10/18/10, defendant shall file its reply. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/12/10. (Martinez, Donna) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
102 ORDER: PLEASE READ FULL TEXT OF ATTACHED ORDER. Jury selection 2/8/2011; joint trial memorandum due 11/22/2010; final pretrial conference 12/8/2010 at 10 am. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 11/2/10. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Trial Brief due by 11/22/2010; Jury Selection set for 2/8/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Robert N. Chatigny; Pretrial Conference set for 12/8/2010 10:00 AM in Chambers Room 135 − Annex, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Robert N. Chatigny (Macare, L.) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Jury Selection set for 2/8/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
103 First MOTION for Extension of Time until December 22, 2010 for submission of joint trial memorandum 102 Order by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael). (Entered: 11/22/2010)
104 ORDER granting 103 Motion for Extension of Time to December 22, 2010, to file a joint trial memorandum. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 11/23/10. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Trial Brief due by 12/22/2010 (Macare, L.) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
105 NOTICE: The final pretrial conference scheduled for December 8, 2010, is hereby canceled and will be rescheduled if necessary, after the filing of the joint trial memorandum on December 22, 2010. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/1/10. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
106 First MOTION for Extension of Time until April 4, 2011 for Submission of Stipulation of Settlement by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
107 ORDER granting 106 Motion for Extension of Time to 4/4/2011 to submit stipulation of settlement. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 2/4/11. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
108 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until May 4, 2011 to file stipulation of dismissal by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
109 ORDER granting 108 Motion for Extension of Time to 5/4/2011 to file stipulation of dismissal. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 4/5/2011. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Stipulation of Dismissal due by 5/4/2011 (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
110 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until June 3, 2011 to file stipulation of settlement by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
111 ORDER granting 110 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/3/2011 to file stipulation of settlement. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 5/5/2011. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

Case: 3:06-cv-01992-RNC As of: 08/07/2012 01:50 PM EDT 13 of 13

06/03/2011 06/03/2011 06/06/2011 06/06/2011 06/06/2011 09/28/2011 09/28/2011

112 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until June 17, 2011 to file stipulation of dismissal by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
113 PROPOSED ORDER for Settlement and Dismissal by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
114 ORDER granting 112 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/17/2011 to file stipulation of dismissal. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 6/6/2011. (Macare, L.) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dismissal due by 6/17/2011 (Macare, L.) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
115 ORDER re 113 Settlement and Dismissal filed by Danbury Area Coalititon for the Rights of Immigrants, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 6/6/11. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
116 ORDER APPROVING the Stipulation re 115 Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/28/11. (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:

09/28/2011

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
117 ORDER re 115 Settlement Order. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/28/11. (Glynn, T.) (Entered: 09/28/2011)