Case: 3:18-cv-805 As of: 11/14/2019 06:48 AM PST 1 of 4
ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−00805−JCS

State of California v. United States Department of Justice et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/07/2018 Date Terminated: 08/13/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

State of California

represented by Lisa Catherine Ehrlich California Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 879−0173 Fax: (510) 622−2270 Email: lisa.ehrlich@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Belton 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94612 510−879−0009 Email: Sarah.Belton@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States Department of Justice
Defendant Office of Justice Programs

represented by Kimberly Anne Robinson US Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate 9th Fl San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−7298 Email: kimberly.robinson3@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Lo United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 436−7180 Fax: (415) 436−6748 Email: Michelle.Lo@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kimberly Anne Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:18-cv-805 As of: 11/14/2019 06:48 AM PST 2 of 4
Michelle Lo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/07/2018
02/07/2018 02/07/2018
02/12/2018 02/12/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018 02/27/2018
02/27/2018 03/13/2018 03/15/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 0971−12090897.). Filed by State of California. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 2/7/2018) Modified on 2/12/2018 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/07/2018)
2 Proposed Summons. (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 2/7/2018) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 2/21/2018. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2018) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 5/4/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/11/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
5 Summons Issued as to Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of California re 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, 3 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued as to USA (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by State of California re 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, 3 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 1 Complaint, 5 Summons Issued as to USA (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
8 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (Party/parties were also notified via telephone or email.) Consent/Declination due by 3/13/2018. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
9 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by State of California.. (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
10 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation to Enlarge Defendants' Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 3/13/2018) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Defendants shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 3/29/2018. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2018) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-805 As of: 11/14/2019 06:48 AM PST 3 of 4

03/16/2018 04/06/2018 04/20/2018 04/23/2018 04/24/2018 04/25/2018
06/29/2018 07/02/2018
08/08/2018 08/14/2018
08/20/2018 11/09/2018 11/13/2018
02/07/2019 02/08/2019

12 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 3/16/2018) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
13 ANSWER to Complaint byOffice of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 4/6/2018) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
14 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options ADR Certification by Parties and Counsel (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference and [Proposed] Order filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 4/23/2018) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
16 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Ehrlich, Lisa) (Filed on 4/24/2018) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
17 Order, signed 4/25/18, by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 15 Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/6/2018. Case Management Conference set for 7/13/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2018) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
18 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference and [Proposed] Order filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 6/29/2018) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
19 Order, signed 7/2/18, by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 18 Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 8/10/2018. Initial Case Management Conference re−set for 8/17/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2018) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
20 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 8/8/2018) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
21 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 11/9/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/17/18 at 2:00 PM, has been continued to 11/16/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Any party seeking a continuance shall e−file a stipulation and proposed order.. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Elizabeth Belton for Plaintiff State of California (Belton, Sarah) (Filed on 8/20/2018) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
23 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Lo, Michelle) (Filed on 11/9/2018) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
24 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Case Management Statement due by 2/8/2019. Further Case Management Conference re−set for 2/15/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2018) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
25 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 24 Clerk's Notice, Joint filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/7/2019) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
26 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kimberly Anne Robinson (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/8/2019) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-805 As of: 11/14/2019 06:48 AM PST 4 of 4

02/08/2019 02/12/2019
03/01/2019

27 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/8/2019) (Entered: 02/08/2019)
28 Order, signed 2/12/19, by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 25 Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 2/22/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2019) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/1/2019. the final OJP response shall be completed by 5/15/19. Case Management Statement due by 5/24/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/31/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.

FTR Time: Not Reported.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Sarah Belton

Attorney for Defendant: Kimberly Robinson

05/24/2019 05/28/2019
06/21/2019 06/24/2019
08/12/2019 08/13/2019

(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
30 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Joint Request For Continuance of Case Management Conference filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 5/24/2019) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
31 CLERK'S NOTICE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Pursuant to the joint request of the parties in the joint case management statement, the Further Case Management Conference has been continued to 6/28/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 6/21/2019.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2019) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
32 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 6/21/2019) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
33 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) Case Management Statement due by 8/23/2019. Further Case Management Conference previously set for 6/28/19 at 2:00 PM, has been continued to 8/30/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
34 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Dismissal With Prejudice filed by Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 8/12/2019) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
35 ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by the Honorable Joseph C. Spero on 08/13/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2019) (Entered: 08/13/2019)

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 22

1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California
2 SATOSHI YANAI Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 SARAH E. BELTON LEE I. SHERMAN
4 LISA C. EHRLICH (SBN 270842) Deputy Attorneys General
5 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550
6 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 879-0173
7 Fax: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Lisa.Ehrlich@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

12

13

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Case No.

15

16

v.

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
18 JUSTICE and OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS,
19 Defendants.
20

21 INTRODUCTION
22 1. Plaintiff State of California, by and through Attorney General Xavier Becerra,
23 (“Plaintiff”) seeks injunctive, declaratory, and other appropriate relief against the United States
24 Department of Justice (“USDOJ”) and USDOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) to remedy
25 OJP’s violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
26 2. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff sent a written request to OJP (“the Request”),
27 seeking, pursuant to FOIA, specified records concerning: (a) the process OJP has undertaken to
28
1
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 22

1 add immigration enforcement related conditions and certification requirements for the Edward

2 Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“JAG”); and (b) OJP’s decision and

3 statements surrounding the requirement that the California Board of State and Community

4 Corrections (“BSCC”) submit a legal opinion verifying compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373

5 (“Section 1373”).

6

3. Plaintiff’s Request asks for information about the process for including three

7 immigration enforcement related conditions that USDOJ and OJP have only recently added to the

8 JAG program. First, to receive a JAG award, state jurisdictions must have a “State statute, or a

9 State rule, -regulation, -policy, or -practice . . . in place that is designed to ensure that”: (A)

10 “agents of the United States acting under color of federal law in fact are given access to any State

11 (or State-contracted) correctional facility for the purpose of permitting such agents to meet with

12 individuals who are (or are believed by such agents to be) aliens and to inquire as to such

13 individuals’ right to be or remain in the United States” (the “access condition”). Second, “when a

14 State (or State-contracted) correctional facility receives from DHS a formal written request

15 authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act that seeks advance notice of the scheduled

16 release date and time for a particular alien in such facility, then such facility will honor such

17 request and as early as practicable . . . provide the requested notice to DHS” (the “notification

18 condition”). Third, jurisdictions must certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a statute that

19 prohibits restrictions on sharing immigration or citizenship status information (the “Section 1373

20 condition”). The State of California is separately challenging all three of these conditions. See

21 State of California, ex rel. Xavier Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4701 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 14,

22 2017).

23

4. OJP has failed to comply with FOIA. OJP did not substantively respond to

24 Plaintiff’s Request within the statutorily prescribed time limit, did not provide Plaintiff with a

25 determination of the scope of the documents it would produce and the exemptions it would claim,

26 failed to produce any documents to Plaintiff, and has not claimed any exemptions allowing it to

27 withhold documents. Nor has OJP responded to Plaintiff’s request for a fee waiver.

28
2
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 22

1

5. The State is concerned with OJP’s lack of transparency in explaining the need

2 for these conditions, how these conditions relate to the purpose that Congress intended when

3 creating the JAG program, and OJP’s purported authority for imposing these conditions. The

4 State is concerned that OJP did not consider the harm that compliance with these conditions may

5 cause to some state and local jurisdictions that have determined such policies would undermine

6 trust and cooperation between law enforcement and their residents, and therefore, public safety in

7 their jurisdictions.

8

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §

10 552(a)(4)(B), and as a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

11

7. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory

12 Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

13

8. Because OJP did not provide Plaintiff with a determination of the scope of the

14 documents it would produce and the exemptions it would claim within 30 working days of

15 receiving Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017 Request, Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted its

16 administrative remedies and may now seek judicial review. 5 U.S.C § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

17

9. Venue is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

18

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

19

10. Assignment to the San Francisco Division of this District is proper pursuant to

20 Civil Local Rule 3-2(c)-(d) because Plaintiff and Defendant USDOJ both maintain offices in the

21 District in San Francisco.

22

PARTIES

23

11. Plaintiff State of California brings this action by and through Attorney General

24 Xavier Becerra. Under the California Constitution, the Attorney General of California is the chief

25 law officer of the state and has the power, among other things, to file any civil action or

26 proceeding directly involving the rights and interests of the State. Plaintiff is a “person”

27 authorized to request records from a federal agency pursuant to FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(2)

28 (defining a “person” to include “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or
3
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 4 of 22

1 private organization”); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). The Attorney General and the State of California

2 have offices at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, and at 1515 Clay Street,

3 Oakland, California.

4

12. Defendant United States Department of Justice is an executive department of

5 the United States of America pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 101, and a federal agency within the meaning

6 of 5 U.S.C. § 551(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2671. USDOJ oversees the component agency from which

7 Plaintiff seeks records. USDOJ has offices at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

8 California.

9

13. Defendant Office of Justice Programs is an authority of the Government of the

10 United States and is therefore an “agency” required to comply with FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1).

11 The OJP oversees the disbursement of certain federal grants to federal, state, local, and tribal

12 justice systems. Its headquarters is located at 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531.

13

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

14

14. FOIA promotes open government by providing every person with a right to

15 request and receive federal agency records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).

16

15. In furtherance of its purpose to encourage open government, FOIA imposes

17 strict deadlines on agencies to provide responsive documents to FOIA requests. Id. §

18 552(a)(6)(A).

19

16. An agency must comply with a FOIA request by issuing a determination within

20 20 business days after receipt of the request. Id. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

21

17. The determination “must at least inform the requester of the scope of the

22 documents that the agency will produce, as well as the scope of the documents that the agency

23 plans to withhold under any FOIA exemptions.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v.

24 Fed. Election Comm’n, 711 F.3d 180, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

25

18. An agency may be entitled to one ten-day extension of time to respond to a

26 request if it provides written notice to the requester explaining “unusual circumstances” exist that

27 warrant additional time. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B).

28
4
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 5 of 22

1

19. An agency must immediately notify the requester of its determination whether

2 to comply with a request, and the reasons for it, and of the right of such person to appeal an

3 adverse determination. Id. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Further, an agency shall make available a FOIA

4 public liaison to aid the requestor in limiting the scope of the request so that it may be processed

5 within the statutory time limit. Id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).

6

20. An agency’s failure to comply with any timing requirements is deemed

7 constructive denial and satisfies the requester’s requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

8 Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

9

21. A FOIA requester who exhausts administrative remedies may petition the court

10 for injunctive and declaratory relief from the agency’s continued withholding of public records.

11 Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

12

ADDITIONAL FACTS

13

22. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff sent the Request by mail and via electronic

14 submission to OJP. (See Exhibit A.)

15

23. By email on September 20, 2017, OJP confirmed receipt of the Request, which

16 it had received on September 11, 2017. OJP assigned the Request OJP FOIA number 17-00309.

17 In this email, OJP invoked a 10-day extension to respond to the Request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §

18 552(a)(6)(B), as “[t]he records you seek require a search in another OJP office.” (See Exhibit B.)

19

24. In addition, the email stated, in part, that incoming requests were assigned to

20 one of three tracks: simple, complex, or expedited; that “complex” requests usually took longer

21 than one month to receive a response; and “at this time, your request has been assigned to the

22 complex track.” The email stated “[y]ou may wish to narrow the scope of your request to limit

23 the number of potentially responsive records or agree to an alternative time frame for processing,

24 should records be located,” and assigned a FOIA Public Liaison “to discuss any aspect of your

25 request.”

26

25. The email included no information about Plaintiff’s request for fee waiver.

27

26. On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff reached out to the assigned OJP FOIA Public

28 Liaison to discuss the status of the Request, and the potential for narrowing the issues, as
5
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 6 of 22

1 suggested in the September 20, 2017 email. Plaintiff received no response. Plaintiff reached out

2 to the OJP FOIA Public Liaison again on November 3, 2017, and on November 13, 2017, but has

3 received no response to any of its inquiries. (See Exhibit C.)

4

27. As of February 7, 2018, OJP has not objected to the Request, provided any

5 detailed information regarding specific disclosure of the records sought, nor produced any

6 responsive documents in response to Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017 Request.

7

28. Under FOIA, OJP was required to have provided Plaintiff with a determination

8 on the scope of the documents it would produce and the exemptions it would claim within 20

9 working days of receiving the request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). OJP extended the 20-day time

10 by citing “unusual circumstances.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(B). Under the statute, OJP could only extend

11 the 20-day time period to 10 additional working days (for a total of 30 days) or else “make

12 available its FOIA Public Liaison” “[t]o aid the requestor” in “limit[ing] the scope of the

13 request.” Id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i)-(ii).

14

29. The 30-day period expired on October 23, 2017. OJP has never provided to

15 Plaintiff the determination required by statute, nor provided any documents, claimed any

16 exemptions, or provided any reasonably segregable portions of records. The FOIA Public Liaison

17 has also never responded to any of Plaintiff’s communications to discuss limiting the scope of its

18 Request.

19

30. Where Defendants have failed to provide any substantive responses to the

20 Request within the statutory timeframe, they have constructively denied the Request. As such,

21 Plaintiff has exhausted its administrative remedies. Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

22

31. Because OJP failed to provide Plaintiff with the determination required in the

23 statutory timeframe, and has failed to respond to any of Plaintiff’s communications to discuss

24 limiting the scope of its Request, FOIA prevents OJP from assessing search fees on Plaintiff for

25 records responsive to the Request. Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(viii).

26

32. Because of OJP’s violations of FOIA, Plaintiff has been required to expend

27 resources to prosecute this action.

28
6
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 7 of 22

1

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2

Claim One (Failure to Conduct Adequate Search)

3

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in all

4 preceding paragraphs.

5

34. Plaintiff has a statutory right to have OJP process its FOIA Request in a manner

6 that complies with FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). OJP violated Plaintiff’s rights in this regard

7 when it unlawfully failed to undertake a search that is reasonably calculated to locate all records

8 that are responsive to Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017 Request.

9

35. Unless enjoined and made subject to a declaration of Plaintiff’s legal rights by

10 this Court, OJP will continue to violate Plaintiff’s rights to receive public records under FOIA.

11

Claim Two (Failure to Respond to Request Within Statutory Timeframe)

12

36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in all

13 preceding paragraphs.

14

37. Defendants failed to respond to the Request within the statutorily mandated

15 timeframe, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under FOIA, including but not limited to 5 U.S.C. §

16 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and (6)(B). Defendants also effectively failed to make available the FOIA Public

17 Liaison to assist in narrowing the scope of Plaintiff’s Request to justify extending the statutorily-

18 mandated timeline. Id. § 552(a)(6)(B)(ii).

19

38. Unless enjoined and made subject to a declaration of Plaintiff’s legal rights by

20 this Court, OJP will continue to violate Plaintiff’s rights to receive public records under FOIA.

21

Claim Three (Failure to Disclose Non-Exempt Records)

22

39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in all

23 preceding paragraphs.

24

40. OJP violated FOIA by refusing to disclose records responsive to Plaintiff’s

25 September 8, 2017 FOIA Request.

26

41. Plaintiff has a statutory right to the records it seeks.

27

42. Unless enjoined and made subject to a declaration of Plaintiff’s legal rights by

28 this Court, OJP will continue to violate Plaintiff’s rights to receive public records under FOIA.
7

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 8 of 22

1

Claim Four (Failure to Provide Reasonably Segregable Portions of Records)

2

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in all

3 preceding paragraphs.

4

44. OJP violated FOIA by failing to provide Plaintiff with reasonably segregable

5 portions of records (after deletion of portions lawfully exempt under FOIA) that are responsive to

6 Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017 FOIA Request, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

7

45. Unless enjoined and made subject to a declaration of Plaintiff’s legal rights by

8 this Court, OJP will continue to violate Plaintiff’s rights to receive reasonably segregable portions

9 of records (after deletion of portions lawfully exempt under FOIA).

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

12

1. Order OJP to conduct searches that are reasonably calculated to locate all

13 records responsive to Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017 FOIA Request, with the cut-off date for such

14 searches being the date the searches are conducted, and to provide Plaintiff, by a date certain,

15 with all responsive records and reasonably segregable portions of responsive records sought.

16

2. Declare that OJP’s failure to make a timely determination regarding Plaintiff’s

17 September 8, 2017 Request, as alleged above, is unlawful under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)

18 and (6)(B).

19

3. Declare that OJP’s failure to search for and disclose to Plaintiff all records that

20 are responsive to Plaintiff’s Request, as alleged above, is unlawful under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §

21 552(a)(3).

22

4. Declare that OJP’s failure to provide Plaintiff with reasonably segregable

23 portions of records (after deletion of portions lawfully exempt under FOIA) that are responsive to

24 Plaintiff’s Request, as alleged above, is unlawful under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).

25

5. Award Plaintiff its reasonable litigation costs and attorney fees pursuant to 5

26 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).

27

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

28
8
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 9 of 22

1 Dated: February 7, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

2

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California

3

SATOSHI YANAI

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

4

SARAH E. BELTON

LEE I. SHERMAN

5

Deputy Attorneys General

6

7

/s/Lisa C. Ehrlich

LISA C. EHRLICH

8

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiff

9

State of California

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
9
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 10 of 22
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 11 of 22

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General

State ofCalifornia DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
Public: (916) 445-9555 Telephone: (510) 879-0173 Facsimile: (S l 0) 622-2270 E-Mail: Lisa.Ehrlich@doj.ca.gov

September 8, 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY AND U.S. MAIL

Dorothy Lee Office ofJustice Programs Office of the General Counsel Attention: FOIA Staff 810 7th Street. NW Room5400 Washington. DC 20531

RE: Freedom of lnfonnation Act Request Regarding Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Solicitation and Awards

Dear Ms. Lee:

Pursuant to the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, and its implementing regulations, I hereby make this request for records on behalf of the Attorney General of California regarding the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ("JAG"). This request describes: (1) the records sought. and (2) our request for a fee waiver for production of these records.

The State of California, and its local jurisdictionst is expected to receive $28.3 million pursuant to the FY 2017 JAG program. On July 25, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs ("DOJ OJP") announced the FY 2017 State Solicitation for JAG. The JAG State Solicitation added two new substantive immigration enforcement-related conditions, which the State of California is challenging in the Northern District of California. See State of California; ex rel. Xavier Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4701. On August 24, 2017, in support of "Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction" in The City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17~cv-5720 (N.D. Ill.), the head ofDOJ OJP submitted a declaration attaching award documents containing what he represented to be the final language for those immigration enforcement-related conditions. According to those conditions, to receive a JAG award, state jurisdictions must have a ''State statute, or a State rule, -regulation, -policy, or practice ... in place that is designed to ensure that": (A) "agents of the United States acting under color of federal law in fact are given to access any State (or State-contracted) correctional facility for the purpose of permitting such agents to meet with individuals who are (or are believed by such agents to be) aliens and to inquire as to such individuals' right to be or remain in the United States" (the "access condition") and (B) '1when a State (or State-contracted) correctional facility

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 12 of 22
September 8, 2017 Page2
receives from OHS a formal written request authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act that seeks advance notice of the scheduled release date and time for a particular alien in such facility, then such facility will honor such request and- as early as practicable ... provide the requested notice to DHS" (the "notification condition").
Moreover, the JAG State Solicitation includes a condition requiring jurisdictions to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 ("Section 1373"). In FY 2016, for the first time, OJP announced that Section 1373 is an "applicable law" under JAG, and compliance with that law would be a required condition for all grantees receiving JAG funds (the "Section 1373 condition").
On August 3, 2017, DOJ OJP announced the FY 2017 Local Solicitation for JAG, which contains the same conditions as the JAG State Solicitation. The award conditions attached to the declaration of the head of DOJ OJP contained access and notification conditions for local jurisdictions which are similar in nature to the ones for state jurisdictions. (The JAG Local Solicitation and JAG State Solicitation will be referred to, collectively, as the "JAG Solicitations," and the represented final award conditions for state and local jurisdictions will be referred to, coUectively as the "represented JAG Final Award Conditions.")
Also, with respect to the FY 2016 JAG funding, DOJ OJP required the Board of State and Community Corrections ("BSCC"), the state entity that receives the State's share of JAG funding; to validate compliance with Section 1373, while not imposing the same requirement on many other grantees. The BSCC complied with this requirement in FY 2016 and validated its compliance with Section 1373 with a legal opinion from cowisel, but has received no response from DOJ OJP. Instead, the United States Department of Justice ("USDOJ") and Attorney General Jefferson Sessions have left standing the unsupported assertions that they made on April 21, 2017 that the State of California has ''laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373."1
We are concerned with DOJ OJP's lack of transparency in explaining the need for these conditions, and how these conditions relate to the purpose that Congress intended when creating the JAG program, and DOJ OJP's purported authority for imposing these programs. We are concerned that DOJ OJP did not consider the harm that compliance with these conditions may cause to some state and local jurisdictions that have determined such policies would undermine trust and cooperation between law enforcement and their residents, and therefore, public safety in their jurisdictions.
1 U.S. Department of Justice, Department ofJustice Sends Letter to Nine Jurisdictions Requiring Proofo/Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (Apr. 21, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-sends-letter-nine-jurisdictions-requiringproof-compliance-8-usc-1373; U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General JeffSessions Delivers Remarks Before Media Availability in San Diego, California (Apr. 21, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-mediaavailability .. san-diego-califomia

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 13 of 22
September 8, 2017 Page 3
Request for Records
To better understand DOJ OJP's justification in adding these conditions, the Attorney General of California respectfully requests that DOJ OJP produce a copy of all of the records enumerated below (in electronic format, or print versions if electronic versions are not available) relating to OJP's decision to introduce immigration enforcement-related conditions to the JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions. We also respectfully request that DOJ OJP produce a copy of all of the records enumerated below relating to DOJ OJP's decision to require the BSCC to validate compliance with Section 1373 in FY 2016. As you are aware, DOJ OJP is subject to the requirements ofFOIA.
In particular, we request all records, as that term has been defined by the Act and interpreted by the courts (e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(t)(2)). Please provide these records on a rolling basis and in a readily-accessible, electronic format, either in ".pdf," or native form for excel spreadsheets. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B). IfDOJ OJP has destroyed or otherwise deems any requested record or portion of a record exempt from disclosure pursuant to one or more 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) exemptions, then please provide an explanation for the destruction or the basis for withholding the record or portion of a record, including (i) basic factual information about each destroyed or withheld record (author(s), recipient(s), date, length, subject matter, and location), (ii) the justification for the destruction or claimed exemption(s), and (iii) the interest protected by the exemption(s) that disclosure would harm. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A).
The Attorney General of California respectfully requests the following records relating to the 2016 JAG Award, 2017 JAG Solicitations, and the represented JAG Final Award Conditions:
I. All records relating to the decision to make Section 13 73 an "applicable law" to JAG;
2. All records containing any explanation as to how Section 1373 is "applicable" to the JAG authorizing statute, or to Congress's intent in authorizing JAG;
3. All records relating to the decision to require BSCC to validate compliance with Section 1373 as a condition for receiving JAG funding in FY 2016;
4. Records sufficient to identify all jurisdictions that were required to validate compliance with Section 1373 as a condition for receiving JAG funding in FY 2016;
5. All records that support USDOJ' s April 21 statement that the State of California has "laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373";
6. All records relating to the decision to include the Section 1373 condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 14 of 22
September 8, 2017 Page 4
7. All records relating to the decision to include the access condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
8. All records relating to the decision to include the notification condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
9. All records containing an explanation as to how the access condition is related to Congress's intent in authorizing JAG;
I 0, All records containing an explanation as to how the notification condition is related to Congress's intent in authorizing JAG;
11. All records, including but not limited to, studies, data, evidence, or other materials that DOJ OJP considered in relation to the decision to make Section 13 73 an "applicable law" to JAG;
12. All records, including but not limited to, studies, data, evidence, or other materials that DOJ OJP considered in relation to the decision to include the Section 13 73 condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
13. All records, including but not limited to, studies, data, evidence, or other materials that DOJ OJP considered in relation to the decision to include the access condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
14. All records, including but not limited to, studies, data, evidence, or other materials that DOJ OJP considered in relation to the decision to include the notification condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
15. All records, including but not limited to, studies, data, evidence, or other materials that DOJ OJP considered in relation to the decision to require BSCC to validate compliance with Section 1373 as a condition for receiving JAG funding in FY 2016;
16. All records identifying or explaining the statutory authority that DOJ OJP relies on to include the Section 1373 condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;
17. All records identifying or explaining the statutory authority that DOJ OJP relies on to include the access condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions;

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 15 of 22
September 8, 2017 Page 5
18. All records identifying or explaining the statutory authority that DOJ OJP relies on to include the notification condition in the 2017 JAG Solicitations and represented JAG Final Award Conditions; and
19. All records relating to DOJ OJP's authority to add "special conditions" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3712(a){6).
The Attorney General believes that the documents sought are publicly available, of great public interest, and not exempt from required disclosure under FOIA. Please forward this request to any other offices that may be in possession ofthe requested documents. In addition, given that disclosure of these records would be in the public interest, even if you determine that certain of the documents sought are exempt under FOIA, the Attorney General requests that you disclose these documents as a matter of agency discretion.
Request for a Fee Waiver
The California Attorney General's Office is a noncommercial organization not subject to review fees. In addition, the Attorney General requests a waiver of searching and copying fees associated with these requests. Under FOIA, agencies must waive such fees where disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthe operations and activities of the government and disclosure is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). DOJ has incorporated this requirement in its regulations for responding to FOIA requests. 28 C.F.R. § 16.10. Under the criteria set forth in the USDOJ regulations, such a waiver is appropriate here, as explained below.
"Disclosure ofthe requested information would shed light on the operations or activities ofthe government. The subject ofthe request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated " 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(2)(i).
These requests explicitly concern only the operation or activities of the federal government. Specifically, they concern the decision of the federal DOJ OJP to include three substantive conditions on the disbursement of federal funds to states and localities, and to require BSCC, but not many other jurisdictions, to validate compliance with Section 1373 in FY 2016. These are direct and clear actions by the federal government that have a direct impact on state and local governments.
"Disclosure ofthe requested information would be likely to contribute significantly to public understanding ofthose operations or activities." 28 C.F.R. § I6.10(k)(2)(ii).
This disclosure would be likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the federal government's decision to impose these new substantive conditions on the disbursement of federal funds appropriated by Congress. The 2017 JAG Solicitations and Final Award Conditions include no explanation ofthese new conditions or the reasoning behind their imposition, nor has DOJ OJP identified the evidence that it relied on in making this decision. And in FY 2016, DOJ OJP never explained why it was selectively requiring BSCC to validate

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 16 of 22
September 8, 2017 Page 6
compliance with Section 1373, but not many other jurisdictions. Thus, thls information is not already in the public domain. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.IO(k)(2)(ii)(A).
Moreover, the disclosure will contribute to the understanding of a broad audience of persons interested in the subject. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.IO(k)(2)(ii)(B). There is no question that the distribution of federal funds itself is a matter of significant public interest, and impacts all residents of California (and the other 49 states), whose state and local law enforcement entities rely on this funding to enhance public safety. The California Attorney General, who is the chief law officer for the State of California and its more than 39 million residents, has a role in determining whether state laws are in compliance with these new substantive conditions. At a minimum, we intend to share the disclosed records with other JAG grantees and sub grantees, something that Vl~ll be of "great benefit to the public at large" as we continue to advocate for strong public safety policies. In addition, our office engages regularly with the public and serves as a source of information to promote the public's understanding through speaking engagements, press releases, and other social media. Those public outreach actions, coupled with our expertise in both administrative and criminal justice law, make our office well suited to disseminate more broadly, which we also plan to do, any notable records disclosed as part of this request.
"The disclosure must not be primarily in the commercial interest ofthe requester." 28 C.F .R. § 16.1 O(k)(2)(iii).
The California Attorney General is a public officer acting on behalf ofthe State and the public pursuant to the California Constitution, statutory authority, and common law. See Cal. Const. art. V, § 13; Cal. Gov't Code§ 12511; D'Amico v. Board ofMedical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d I, 14-15 (1974). The information sought in thls FOIA request will assist the Attorney General in representing the 39 million people of California. Disclosure of the documents sought "is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government," and the materials requested are not sought for any commercial purpose.
Please send all requested materials to my attention, at the address provided above, within 20 business days as required by FOIA. Please call me at 510-879-0173 if you have any questions about this request.
Sincerely,
v-----
LISA C. EHRLICH Deputy Attorney General
For XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 17 of 22

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 18 of 22

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 19 of 22

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 20 of 22

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 21 of 22

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/07/18 Page 22 of 22

 
 Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 35 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 5

1 DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

2 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

3

Chief, Civil Division KIMBERLY A. ROBINSON (DCBN 999022)

4 Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

5

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7298

6

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

7

Email: Kimberly.robinson3@usdoj.gov

8 Attorneys for Defendants United States Department of Justice and Office of Justice Programs
9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

17 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
18 and OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS,

19

Defendants.

20

21

Plaintiff State of California (“plaintiff”) and defendant United States Department of Justice and

22 Office of Justice Programs (“defendants”) hereby enter into this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re

23 Settlement and Dismissal With Prejudice (“Stipulation”), as follows:

24

WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Freedom of Information

25 Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended;

26

27

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00805-JCS
1

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 35 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 5

1

WHEREAS, plaintiff and defendant wish to avoid any further litigation and controversy and

2 compromise fully any and all claims and issues that have been raised, or could have been raised in this

3 action;

4

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Stipulation, and

5 other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby anticipated, the parties agree as

6 follows:

7

1. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff the amount of twenty-two thousand five-hundred dollars

8 ($22,500.00) in full and complete satisfaction of plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees, costs, and

9 litigation expenses under the FOIA in the above-captioned matter. This payment shall constitute full

10 and final satisfaction of any and all of plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses

11 in the above-captioned matter, and is inclusive of any interest. Payment of this money will be made by

12 electronic funds transfer, and plaintiff’s counsel will provide the necessary information to defendant’s

13 counsel to effectuate the transfer. Defendant will make all reasonable efforts to make payment within

14 sixty (60) days of the date that plaintiff’s counsel provides the necessary information for the electronic

15 funds transfer and this Stipulation is approved by the Court, whichever is later, but cannot guarantee

16 payment within that time frame.

17

2. Upon the execution of this Stipulation, plaintiff hereby releases and forever discharges

18 defendants, any of defendants’ officers, employees, agents, successors, or assigns, and the United States

19 of America from any and all claims and causes of action that plaintiff has asserted in this litigation in the

20 above-captioned matter, including but not limited to all past, present, or future claims for attorneys’ fees,

21 costs, or litigation expenses in connection with the above-captioned litigation.

22

3. The provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 are set forth below:

23

"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist

24 in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected

25 his settlement with the debtor."

26

Plaintiff, having been apprised of the statutory language of Civil Code Section 1542 by its

27 attorneys, and fully understanding the same, nevertheless elects to waive the benefits of any and all

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00805-JCS
2

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 35 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 5

1 rights it may have pursuant to the provision of that statute and any similar provision of federal law.

2 Plaintiff understands that, if the facts concerning any liability under FOIA or liability for attorneys’ fees,

3 costs, or litigation expenses are found hereafter to be other than or different than the facts now believed

4 by it to be true, the Stipulation shall be and remain effective notwithstanding such material difference.

5

4. Execution of this Stipulation and its approval by the Court shall constitute dismissal of

6 this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

7

5. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulation is entered into solely for the purpose of

8 settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and it shall not

9 be construed as evidence or as an admission on the part of defendant, the United States, its agents,

10 servants, components, or employees regarding any issue of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity

11 of any allegation or claim raised in this action, or as evidence or as an admission by the defendant

12 regarding plaintiff’s eligibility for or entitlement to attorneys’ fees, costs, or other litigation expenses

13 under FOIA. This Stipulation is entered into by the parties for the purpose of compromising disputed

14 claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation. This Stipulation shall not be used in any manner

15 to establish liability for fees or costs in any other case or proceeding involving defendant. This

16 Stipulation is understood not to preclude or prevent plaintiff from seeking through the Freedom of

17 Information Act, or other means, records not sought in the Freedom of Information Act request that gave

18 rise to this action.

19

6. This Stipulation is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto and their

20 respective successors and assigns.

21

7. If any provision of this Stipulation shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the

22 validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or

23 impaired thereby.

24

8. This Stipulation shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and it is

25 expressly understood and agreed that this Stipulation has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the

26 parties hereto. The parties further acknowledge that no warranties or representations have been made on

27 any subject other than as set forth in this Stipulation.

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00805-JCS
3

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 35 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 5

1

9. The persons signing this Stipulation warrant and represent that they possess full authority

2 to bind the persons on whose behalf they are signing to the terms of the Stipulation.

3

10. This Stipulation may not be altered, modified or otherwise changed in any respect except

4 in writing, duly executed by all of the parties or their authorized representatives.

5

11. The Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and is effective on the date by which

6 both parties have executed the Stipulation.

7

12. This Court may retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing this Stipulation.

8

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

9

10 Dated: August 12, 2019
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dated: August 12, 2019 20 21 22

Respectfully submitted,
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California SATOSHI YANAI Supervising Deputy Attorney General SARAH E. BELTON LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General
/s/ Sarah E. Belton SARAH E. BELTON Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
David L. Anderson United States Attorney
/s/ Kimberly A. Robinson KIMBERLY A. ROBINSON Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

23

ECF ATTESTATION

24

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5(i)(3), I, Kimberly Robinson, attest that I have obtained

25 concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory listed here.

26

27

[PROPOSED] ORDER

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00805-JCS
4

Case 3:18-cv-00805-JCS Document 35 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 5

1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 DATE: August 13, 2019
3
4

The Honorable Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00805-JCS
5