U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−02118−RDM

TYPE I−FOIA

PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. v. DEPARTMENT Date Filed: 10/13/2017

OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al

Jury Demand: None

Assigned to: Judge Randolph D. Moss

Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of

Case: 1:17−cv−02202−RDM

Information Act

Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.

represented by Jennifer H. Saperstein COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street N.W. One City Center Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662−5682 Email: jsaperstein@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nikhil Vikas Gore COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street N.W. One City Center Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662−5918 Email: ngore@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. Iraola COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street, NW One City Center Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662−5904 Email: DIraola@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Travers Barnett COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street, NW One City Center Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662−5430 Fax: (202) 662−6291 Email: kbarnett@cov.com TERMINATED: 01/02/2018

V.
Defendant
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by Peter C. Pfaffenroth U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE for D.C. Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−2513 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: peter.pfaffenroth@usdoj.gov

Defendant CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Defendant OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Defendant OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Leeson Sroka U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252−7113 Fax: (202) 252−2599 Email: scott.sroka@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/12/2020
represented by Peter C. Pfaffenroth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Leeson Sroka (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2020
represented by Peter C. Pfaffenroth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Leeson Sroka (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2020
represented by Peter C. Pfaffenroth (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Leeson Sroka (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2020

Date Filed 10/13/2017
10/13/2017 10/13/2017
10/13/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−5157619) filed by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Summons USAO, # 6 Summons AG, # 7 Summons CBP, # 8 Summons DHS, # 9 Summons OMB, # 10 Summons OPM)(Barnett, Kevin) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. (zsb) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
2 SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zsb) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
3 STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set out in the attached standing order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/13/17. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/16/2017
11/08/2017 11/08/2017 11/13/2017 11/13/2017
11/13/2017 01/02/2018 01/02/2018 01/04/2018 03/02/2018 03/12/2018 03/13/2018
03/14/2018 03/14/2018

4 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (Barnett, Kevin) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 10/13/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 11/12/2017. (Barnett, Kevin) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION served on 10/16/2017; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 10/16/2017; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET served on 10/16/2017; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT served on 10/16/2017, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 10/16/2017. (Barnett, Kevin) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Leeson Sroka on behalf of All Defendants (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Nikhil Vikas Gore on behalf of PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
9 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.(Sroka, Scott) Modified to add link on 11/14/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/13/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a status conference on January 4, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom 21, to discuss the schedule for further proceedings in this matter. The parties shall confer in advance of the status conference to narrow the issues for discussion. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/13/17. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/4/2018, at 10:15 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer H. Saperstein on behalf of PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (Saperstein, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
11 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. Attorney Kevin Travers Barnett terminated. (Barnett, Kevin) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 1/4/2018. Joint Status Report due by 3/3/2018. A further Status Conference is set for 3/13/2018, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
12 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
13 STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 3/13/2018. Defendant OPM shall complete its production of documents by by 4/6/2018; The remaining Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs and the Court with a production schedule by 4/13/2018. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report on or before April 27, 2018, identifying the issues remaining in this litigation and proposing a schedule for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/14/18. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/27/2018. (kt) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

04/13/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 05/04/2018 05/07/2018 05/07/2018 05/14/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018
08/17/2018
08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/17/2018 08/24/2018 08/24/2018

14 STATUS REPORT and Proposed Production Schedule by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
15 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Extension of Time 15 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before May 4, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/27/18. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/4/2018. (dot) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
16 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' Joint Status Report 16 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on May 14, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/7/18. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/14/2018, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 5/14/2018. Document productions shall proceed as ordered on the record. A further Status Conference is set for 7/6/2018, at 12:30 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
17 STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 7/6/2018. By 7/10/2018, Department of Homeland Security shall provide Plaintiff with search terms, as stated on the record; By 7/13/2018, but no later than 7/27/2018, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the search terms; By 7/13/2018, the Office of Personnel Management documents shall be produced, and if they are not produced the Defendants shall provide a status report with an explanation for the lack of production; Joint Status Report due by 8/17/2018. A further Status Conference is set for 9/5/2018, at 10:15 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
18 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
19 STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report 18 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file their joint status report on or before August 24, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/17/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/24/2018. (dot) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
20 STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
21 Supplemental STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/27/2018
08/27/2018 08/30/2018 09/05/2018 09/10/2018
09/10/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/10/2018
10/10/2018 10/24/2018 10/29/2018
11/16/2018 11/16/2018 11/25/2018
11/26/2018 12/14/2018

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 20 , it is hereby ORDERED that the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") shall file a declaration on or before August 31, 2018, explaining why it cannot review and release responsive, non−exempt records at the rate proposed by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/27/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") shall file a declaration on or before 8/31/2018. (kt) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
22 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Notice of Filing filed by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James V.M.L. Holzer)(Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 9/5/2018. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter Jeff Hook.) (dot) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the status conference held on September 5, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED that the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") shall produce records at a minimum rate of 350 pages per month. It is further ORDERED that the parties' shall file a joint status report on or before October 5, 2018, alerting the Court to DHS's progress and proposing a briefing schedule moving forward. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/10/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/5/2018. (kt) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
23 STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
24 STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's status report 23 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on October 29, 2018, at 10:15 a.m. in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/10/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/29/2018, at 10:15 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
25 Supplemental STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 10/29/2018. On or before 11/1/2018, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs proposed narrowing of the DHS search to taskers C & D, and OMB's voluminous search to two custodians. The parties shall continue to meet and confer. Joint Status Report due by 11/16/2018. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (kt) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
26 STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (Sroka, Scott) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
27 STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' status reports 26 , 27 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer on the issues identified in Plaintiff's status report 27 . It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report informing the Court of the outcome of these discussions on or before December 14, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/25/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 11/25/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/14/2018. (kt) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
28 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 12/14/2018)

12/16/2018
12/17/2018 01/31/2019 02/03/2019
02/04/2019 02/15/2019 02/18/2019
02/19/2019 03/15/2019 03/20/2019
03/20/2019 04/03/2019 04/03/2019
04/04/2019
04/04/2019 05/06/2019 05/09/2019
05/09/2019 06/21/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties joint status report 28 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before January 31, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/16/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 12/16/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 1/31/2019. (kt) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
29 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 29 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before February 15, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/3/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 02/03/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/15/2019. (kt) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
30 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 30 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 15, 2019. It is further ORDERED that the OMB shall provide Plaintiff with information regarding the narrowed searched on or before February 22, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/18/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 02/18/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/15/2019. (kt) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
31 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on April 8, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/20/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/8/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21 before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (dot) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
32 Joint MOTION to Continue by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 32 Motion to Continue; emailed to DIraola@cov.com, cc'd 7 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Do Not Refile. FYI for future filings. If you are electronically filing any document, your signature must be on the document. (ztd, ) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the joint motion to continue 32 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The status conference scheduled for April 8, 2019, is hereby VACATED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further joint status report on or before May 6, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/4/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/6/2018. (kt) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
33 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 33 , it is hereby ORDERED that OMB and DHS are no longer required to make future productions in this case. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further joint status report on or before June 21, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/9/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/21/2019. (kt) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
34 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 06/21/2019)

06/23/2019
06/24/2019 07/31/2019 08/05/2019
08/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019
09/06/2019 11/22/2019 11/25/2019
11/25/2019
01/06/2020 01/06/2020
01/06/2020 02/12/2020
02/28/2020 03/05/2020
03/05/2020 04/01/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 34 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further joint status report on or before July 31, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/23/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 06/23/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/31/2019. (kt) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
35 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 35 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before September 6, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/5/2019. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/6/2019. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
36 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties joint status report 36 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties' shall file a further status report on or before November 22, 2019 setting forth the parties respective positions regarding the outstanding issues, if any, that may require briefing and resolution. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/06/19. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/22/2019. (kt) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
37 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 37 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before January 6, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/25/19. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
ENTERED IN ERROR......MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 40 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before January 6, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/25/19. (lcrdm3, ) Modified on 11/25/2019, entered in wrong case (kt). (Entered: 11/25/2019)
38 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Gore, Nikhil) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 38 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further joint status report on or before March 1, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/6/20. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/1/2020. (kt) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
39 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Peter C. Pfaffenroth on behalf of CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Substituting for attorney Scott Sroka (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
40 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' joint status report 40 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before April 1, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/5/20. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/1/2020. (dot) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
41 Joint STATUS REPORT by PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.. (Iraola, David) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/02/2020 04/02/2020 05/19/2020
06/01/2020

MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 41 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before May 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/2/20. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/19/2020. (kt) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
42 Joint STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' joint status report 42 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before June 12, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/1/20. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, #163 Washington, DC 20006
Plaintiff
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 3801 Nebraska Avenue NW Washington, DC 20016
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20229
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 1900 E Street NW Washington, DC 20415
Defendants.

Case No. __________

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF (Freedom of Information Act)
Plaintiff, The Protect Democracy Project, Inc., brings this action against Defendants, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management, to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and for related declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 15
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, The Protect Democracy Project, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, and headquartered at 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006. 2. Plaintiff’s mission is to protect our democracy from descending into a more autocratic form of government by preventing those in power from depriving Americans of a free, fair, and fully-informed opportunity to exercise ultimate sovereignty. As part of this mission, Plaintiff seeks to inform public understanding of operations and activities of the government by gathering and disseminating information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of Executive Branch operations and activities. 3. Plaintiff regularly requests information pursuant to FOIA. Consistent with its regular practice, Plaintiff intends to give the public access to documents obtained via these FOIA requests on its website, www.protectdemocracy.org, and to provide information about and analysis of those documents as appropriate. 4. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an agency of the United States of America under 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). Defendant DHS is headquartered at 3801 Nebraska Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. Defendant DHS has possession, custody, and control of the documents that Plaintiff seeks in response to the FOIA request sent to DHS. 5. Defendant Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) is a component of DHS. Defendant CBP is headquartered at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229. Defendant CBP has possession, custody, and control of the documents that Plaintiff seeks in response to the FOIA request sent to CBP.
2

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 15
6. Defendant Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) is a component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and is an agency of the United States of America under 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). Defendant OMB is headquartered at 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Defendant OMB has possession, custody, and control of the documents that Plaintiff seeks in response to the FOIA request sent to OMB.
7. Defendant Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) is an agency of the United States of America under 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). Defendant OPM is headquartered at 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415. Defendant OPM has possession, custody, and control of the documents that Plaintiff seeks in response to the FOIA request sent to OPM.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. 9. Venue is proper pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing DHS to hire an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents “as soon as is practicable” and stating that OPM “shall take appropriate action as may be necessary to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.”1 In a separate Executive Order issued on the same date, President Trump directed DHS to hire an additional 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers.2
1 Exec. Order No. 13767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017). 2 Exec. Order No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017).
3

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 15
11. On February 20, 2017, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly issued memoranda to CBP
and ICE directing the agencies to begin the process of hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 10,000 additional ICE officers3 – in effect, an order to increase the Border Patrol’s staff by 25% and to triple ICE’s workforce.4 To meet these hiring needs, Administration
officials have suggested that they will seek to reduce what they view as overly restrictive hiring
barriers, including with respect to polygraph examinations and background checks.
12. The Administration’s approach to border enforcement and illegal immigration is an issue of widespread public interest – an issue that is the subject of significant press attention,5
and that has raised concerns among both current and former government officials. These
officials have suggested that the loosening of hiring standards may undermine the integrity of CBP and ICE and have negative consequences for border security.6 They have observed that the
3 Dept. of Homeland Security, “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies” (Feb. 20, 2017); Dept. of Homeland Security, “Enforcement of the Immigrations Laws to Serve the National Interest” (Feb. 20, 2017). 4 See Greg Moran, Trump’s plans to rapidly expand Border Patrol comes with big risks, L.A. Times (Mar. 13, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-border-patrol-20170313story.html. 5 See generally infra, notes 6-8. 6 See, e.g., Dan Frosch and Laura Meckler, In Rush for New Agents, Border Patrol Weighs Changing Polygraph Program, Wall St. J. (Apr. 13, 2017), https://www.wsj.com/articles/inrush-for-new-agents-border-patrol-weighs-changing-polygraph-program-1492084802 (quoting the DHS Inspector General, John Roth, as saying that the “proposed changes [to the agency’s hiring practices] fail to achieve the goal of shortening the hiring process” and “increase the risk that unsuitable candidates may be hired”); Amanda Holpuch, White House plan to hire more border agents raises vetting fear, ex-senior official says, The Guardian (Feb. 26, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/26/trump-plan-border-agents-vetting-jamestomsheck (quoting the former Head of Internal Affairs at CBP, James Tomsheck, as observing that the loosening of hiring standards “would very likely compromise the future integrity of CBP and have strong negative implications on border security, and therefore national security”).
4

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 15
CBP’s last surge in hiring (from 2006-2008) was fraught with problems and led to an increase in
misconduct by Border Patrol agents.7 A recent report by the DHS Inspector General also calls
into question the practicality, and the necessity, of the Administration’s rapid hiring plans.8
13. In light of the evident difficulty in ramping up hiring to the levels ordered by the
President and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administration’s plan to increase the
number of CBP and ICE personnel raises concerns about whether – and to what extent – the
Administration intends to rely on private contractors to provide services related to the
enforcement of immigration law and border security, which are services that have traditionally
been performed by government employees.
14. Consistent with its mission, The Protect Democracy Project submitted FOIA
requests to DHS, CBP, OMB, and OPM seeking information from the Trump Administration
about its policies and plans for the hiring of new personnel to assist with border enforcement and
illegal immigration. Specifically, The Protect Democracy Project is requesting information
7 See Caroline Kelly and Todd Gillman, Trump’s plan for Border Patrol, ICE hiring surges face timing, security obstacles, Dallas News (July 6, 2017), https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/07/06/trumps-plan-border-patrol-ice-hiringsurges-face-timing-security-obstacles (quoting the former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service as stating that “[l]owering and changing standards can lead to integrity issues in the force several years later, and that did happen in the 2000s”). 8 See Lisa Rein, Trump plan to hire 15,000 border and immigration personnel isn’t justified, federal watchdog says, Wash. Post (Aug. 2, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-hire-15000-border-and-immigrationpersonnel-isnt-justified-federal-watchdog-says/2017/08/02/c9345136-77a1-11e7-8839ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.e5e27a1733b2 (summarizing a recent report by the DHS Inspector General that concluded that DHS would be required to vet 750,000 applicants to identify 5,000 qualified personnel); Max Greenwood, Homeland Security Department cannot prove need for Trump’s promised officer surge, The Hill (Aug. 2, 2017), http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/345070-dhs-cannot-prove-need-for-trumps-promisedofficer-surge (citing a portion of the same report by the DHS Inspector General that concluded CBP and ICE were not able to identify how many additional personnel they needed to hire).
5

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 15
concerning the means by which the government will meet the increased levels of personnel called for in President Trump’s Executive Orders, and whether the implementation of these Executive Orders will involve the use of private contractors.
15. As detailed below, Defendants have failed to comply with these requests within the statutorily-prescribed period for doing so under FOIA.
I. AUGUST 4, 2017 DHS REQUEST 16. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project submitted a FOIA request to
DHS (“the August 4 DHS Request”) seeking fifteen categories of records related to the agency’s plans for addressing border enforcement and illegal immigration. The August 4 DHS Request also sought a fee waiver and expedited processing. A true and correct copy of the August 4 DHS Request is attached as Exhibit 1.9
17. On August 31, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received a response from DHS acknowledging that DHS had received the request on August 29, 2017 and assigned it DHS FOIA number 2017-HQFO-01293. In its response, DHS granted Plaintiff’s request for a fee waiver and expedited processing. DHS also stated in the response that it was invoking the 10day extension to comply with the request pursuant to 6 C.F.R. Part 5 § 5.5(c).10 The response did not indicate the scope of the documents DHS would produce or the exemptions DHS would claim with respect to any withheld documents.
9 The attached letter is dated August 3, 2017. However, The Protect Democracy Project submitted the request to DHS on August 4, 2017. 10 6 C.F.R. Part 5 § 5.5(c) is the federal regulation that implements the 10-day extension provided by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(i). This statutory provision and the corresponding regulation are referred to interchangeably throughout the Complaint.
6

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 15
18. Pursuant to FOIA, within 30 business days of receipt of Plaintiff’s request, DHS was required to “determine . . . whether to comply with such request” and to “immediately notify” Plaintiff of “such determination and the reasons therefor,” and, in the case of an adverse determination, Plaintiff’s appeal rights. 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(i); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i). DHS received the request on August 4, 2017. DHS’s response was due no later than September 18, 2017.
19. To date, The Protect Democracy Project has received no further response from DHS related to the August 4 DHS Request. II. AUGUST 4, 2017 CBP REQUEST
20. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project submitted a FOIA request to CBP (“the August 4 CBP Request”) seeking fifteen categories of records related to the agency’s plans for addressing border enforcement and illegal immigration. The August 4 CBP Request also sought a fee waiver and expedited processing. A true and correct copy of the August 4 CBP Request is attached as Exhibit 1.11
21. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received an automated response from CBP confirming submission of the August 4 CBP Request and assigning it CBP FOIA number 2017-077953. CBP revised the FOIA number for the August 4 CBP Request on several occasions thereafter, most recently to CBP FOIA number OA-2017-077953.12
11 The attached letter is dated August 3, 2017. However, The Protect Democracy Project submitted the request to CBP on August 4, 2017. 12 There have been several changes to the FOIA number for the August 4 CBP Request. Specifically, on August 14, 2017, CBP revised the FOIA number from 2017-077953 to OA2017-077953. Then, on August 22, 2014, CBP revised the FOIA number from OA-2017-077953 back to 2017-077953. On August 25, 2017, CBP revised the FOIA number from 2017-077953 to OTIA-2017-077953, and then, later that day, CBP revised the FOIA number back to OA2017-077953.
7

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 15
22. On August 11, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received another automated notice from CBP acknowledging receipt of the August 4 CBP Request on August 4, 2017. CBP’s response did not indicate the scope of the documents CBP would produce or the exemptions CBP would claim with respect to any withheld documents.
23. On August 14, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received an email from CBP granting its request for a fee waiver.
24. On August 25, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received an email from CBP granting its request for expedited processing.
25. On August 29, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received an email from CBP stating that the August 4 CBP Request was “very broad in scope” and that, with respect to The Protect Democracy Project’s requests for communications on certain topics, CBP was seeking additional information regarding the “offices and positions you wish CBP to search.” In this email, CBP did not ask Plaintiff to perfect its request and did not state that it was seeking to toll its statutory timeline for making a determination as to The Protect Democracy Project’s request.
26. On September 20, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project sent an email responding to CBP’s request for additional information. In this email, The Protect Democracy Project stated that the relevant offices were set forth in the August 4 CBP Request, and directed CBP to the relevant language in the August 4 CBP Request. With respect to CBP’s request for a list of “positions . . . to search,” The Protect Democracy Project stated that it lacked sufficient information to compile such a list but was willing to discuss potential solutions with CBP.
27. On October 3, 2017, CBP sent an email to The Protect Democracy Project stating: “In reviewing your request it appears we need to narrow the scope a little further, which employees or positions in the offices do you wish us to search, upper level management? I.e.
8

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 15
Assistant Commissioner, Chief of Border patrol?” In its October 3 email, CBP did not state that it was seeking to toll CBP’s statutory timeline for making a determination as to The Protect Democracy Project’s request.
28. On the same date, The Protect Democracy Project sent a response to CBP stating that it would be “happy to be narrow the scope if possible,” while reiterating that it “lack[s] sufficient information about the organization of these offices to identify possible custodians in more detail without further information from [CBP].” The Protect Democracy Project asked CBP to “provide further information on the names and natures of the positions in the offices listed,” and further stated that, “[t]o the extent you have undertaken an initial assessment of which employees may have responsive documents – through questionnaires or otherwise – we would certainly be happy to discuss whether there are appropriate ways to narrow the scope in light of that information.”
29. Pursuant to FOIA, within 20 business days of receipt of Plaintiff’s request, CBP was required to “determine . . . whether to comply with such request” and to “immediately notify” Plaintiff of “such determination and the reasons therefor,” and, in the case of an adverse determination, Plaintiff’s appeal rights. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). CBP received the request on August 4, 2017. CBP’s response was due no later than September 1, 2017.
30. In its August 11 correspondence, CBP referenced the potential availability, under 6 C.F.R. Part 5 § 5.5(c), of a 10 business day extension to FOIA’s 20 business day response deadline. However, CBP did not invoke this extension; nor did it specify any claimed “unusual circumstances” that would have permitted it to invoke the extension. Even if CBP had properly invoked the 10-day extension, its response would have been due no later than September 18, 2017.
9

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 15
31. To date, The Protect Democracy Project has received no further response from CBP related to the August 4 CBP Request. III. AUGUST 4, 2017 OMB REQUEST
32. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project submitted a FOIA request to OMB (“the August 4 OMB Request”) seeking three categories of records related to the agency’s plans for addressing border enforcement and illegal immigration. The August 4 OMB Request also sought a fee waiver and expedited processing. With respect to its request for expedited processing, The Protect Democracy Project certified that its request met the criteria for expedited processing under Defendant OMB’s regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 1303.10(d)(ii), (iv), because there is an “urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” the request is “made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information,” and the request concerns “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that could affect public confidence.” A true and correct copy of the August 4 OMB Request is attached as Exhibit 2.
33. On August 28, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project sent an email to OMB attaching the August 4 OMB Request and asking OMB to confirm receipt of the request.
34. On September 8, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received a response from OMB stating that the August 4 OMB Request had been received on September 7, 2017 and assigned OMB FOIA number 2017-426. The response did not address Plaintiff’s fee waiver and expedited processing requests, and did not indicate the scope of the documents OMB would produce or the exemptions OMB would claim with respect to any withheld documents.
35. Pursuant to FOIA, within 20 business days of receipt of Plaintiff’s request, OMB was required to “determine . . . whether to comply with such request” and to “immediately
10

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 11 of 15
notify” Plaintiff of “such determination and the reasons therefor,” and, in the case of an adverse determination, Plaintiff’s appeal rights. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). OMB received the request on August 4, 2017. OMB’s response was due no later than September 1, 2017.
36. To date, The Protect Democracy Project has received no further response from OMB related to the August 4 OMB Request. IV. AUGUST 4, 2017 OPM REQUEST
37. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project submitted a FOIA request to OPM (“August 4 OPM Request”) seeking three categories of records related to the agency’s plans for addressing border enforcement and illegal immigration, including, among other requests, “[a]ll documents, including communications, memoranda, assessments, and final determinations, related to the requests by [DHS] for various hiring authorities outlined . . . [in] [DHS’s] ‘90-day Progress Report to the President on Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.’”
38. The August 4 OPM Request also sought a fee waiver and expedited processing. With respect to its request for expedited processing, The Protect Democracy Project certified that its request met the criteria for expedited processing under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(ii) because there is an “urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” the request is “made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information,” and the request concerns “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that could affect public confidence.” A true and correct copy of the August 4 OPM Request is attached as Exhibit 3.
11

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 12 of 15
39. On August 4, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received an automated response from OPM stating that the August 4 OPM Request had been received and would be “forwarded to the appropriate OPM office for response as quickly as possible.”
40. On August 10, 2017, The Protect Democracy Project received a letter from OPM stating that the August 4 OPM Request had been received and assigned OPM FOIA number 2017-05971. OPM’s response also stated that it had placed the request on the “complex track” reserved for “complex requests involving voluminous records, [and] extensive searches or consultations (requiring more than 20 workdays to respond).” The response did not address Plaintiff’s fee waiver and expedited processing requests, and did not indicate the scope of the documents OPM would produce or the exemptions OPM would claim with respect to any withheld documents.
41. On August 28, 2017, OPM sent an email to The Protect Democracy Project requesting that The Protect Democracy Project provide a copy of the “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” document referenced in the August 4 OPM Request. On the same date, The Protect Democracy Project responded by email and provided OPM with the requested document.
42. Pursuant to FOIA, within 20 business days of receipt of Plaintiff’s request, OPM was required to “determine . . . whether to comply with such request” and to “immediately notify” Plaintiff of “such determination and the reasons therefor,” and, in the case of an adverse determination, Plaintiff’s appeal rights. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). OPM received the request on August 4, 2017. OPM’s response was due no later than September 1, 2017.
43. To date, The Protect Democracy Project has received no further response from OPM related to the August 4 OPM Request.
12

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 13 of 15
COUNT I - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FOIA 44. The Protect Democracy Project incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 45. Pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), The Protect Democracy Project has a statutory right to access requested agency records. 46. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E), the Protect Democracy Project is entitled to expedited processing of the FOIA requests described in this complaint. 47. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A), the Protect Democracy Project is entitled to a waiver of all fees, other than reasonable standard charges for document duplication. 48. Defendants have failed to comply with the time limits prescribed by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(6)(B)(i)-(ii). 49. Defendants have failed to conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to the requests. 50. Defendants have failed to properly respond to The Protect Democracy Project’s record requests. 51. Defendants OMB and OPM have failed to respond to The Protect Democracy Project’s fee waiver requests. 52. Defendants OMB and OPM have failed to respond to The Protect Democracy Project’s requests for expedited processing.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, The Protect Democracy Project respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment for Plaintiff and award the following relief: a. Order Defendants, by a date certain, to conduct searches that are reasonably likely
to lead to the discovery of any and all records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests;
13

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 14 of 15
b. Order Defendants, by a date certain, to demonstrate that they have conducted adequate searches;
c. Order Defendants, by a date certain, to produce to Plaintiff any and all nonexempt records or portions of records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, as well as Vaughn indices of any records or portions of records withheld due to a claim of exemption;13
d. Enjoin Defendants from withholding the requested records; e. Order Defendants OMB and OPM to grant the fee waivers requested in Plaintiff’s
submissions to OMB and OPM of August 4, 2017; f. Issue a declaration that the failure of Defendants OMB and OPM to respond to
Plaintiff’s fee waiver requests violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A); g. Order Defendants OMB and OPM to expedite the processing of Plaintiff’s
requests submitted to OMB and OPM on August 4, 2017; h. Issue a declaration that the failure of Defendants OMB and OPM to respond to
Plaintiff’s requests for expedited processing violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E); i. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), award Plaintiff its costs and attorney’s fees
reasonably incurred in this action; and j. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
13 See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974) (agency opposing a FOIA request should provide an itemized index correlating each withheld document (or portion) with a specific exemption justification).
14

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 15 of 15

October 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin Barnett_________________ Kevin Barnett (D.C. Bar No. 1003410) Jennifer H. Saperstein (D.C. Bar No. 989743)* Nikhil V. Gore (D.C. Bar No. 1019777)* Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662-5430 kbarnett@cov.com
Laurence M. Schwartztol* The Protect Democracy Project 10 Ware Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (202) 856-9191 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
* Application pending for admission to the District Court Bar.

15

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 1

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 9
August 3, 2017
Sam Kaplan Chief Privacy Officer/Chief FOIA Officer The Privacy Office U.S. Department of Homeland Security 245 Murray Lane SW STOP­0655 Washington, D.C. 20528­0655
Sabrina Burroughs FOIA Officer Customs and Border Patrol 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3.3D Washington, D.C. 20229 Phone: 202­325­0150
Re: Freedom of Information Act
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, The Protect Democracy Project hereby requests that your office produce within 20 business days the following records (see below for clarity on the types of records sought):
1. All documents setting forth policies, procedures, guidelines, guidance, best practices, or requirements for contracting with any non­government entity to provide services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
2. Documents sufficient to show the number of contracts currently in force between DHS (or its components or representatives) and any non­governmental corporate entity that has been hired or otherwise contracted to provide services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 9
3. All contracts currently in force between DHS (or its components or representatives) and any non­governmental entity that has been hired or otherwise contracted to provide services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
4. All communications between any component of DHS and any other federal agency or the White House concerning hiring or contracting with any non­governmental corporate entity for purposes of providing services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
5. All communications between any component of DHS and any non­governmental corporate entity related to hiring or contracting with any non­governmental corporate entity for purposes of providing services related to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
6. All documents currently in effect reflecting any determinations regarding which functions related to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States constitute “commercial activities” and which constitute “inherently governmental activities” as those terms are used in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A­76. The search for documents responsive to this request should include, but not be limited to, documents in the custody of the agency’s competitive sourcing official. For this request, we ask that you conduct a search for records extending from January 1, 2004 to the date of the search.
7. All documents related to DHS’s efforts to comply with the directive in Section 8 of Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” (Jan. 25, 2017) (“EO 13767”) that DHS “take all appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents,” including but not limited to any assessment of the steps needed to effectuate that directive, any assessment of the role non­government corporate entities may play in expanding the Border Patrol’s work force, any communications with non­governmental corporate entities who may provide personnel or services relevant to that directive, and any Requests for Proposals or similar documents related to that directive.
8. All communications between DHS and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) regarding the directive in Section 16 of EO 13767 that OPM “take appropriate action as may be necessary to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.”
9. All documents supporting, assessing, or contradicting the following assertion on page 5 of DHS’s “90­day Progress Report to the President on Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” (“90­Day Progress Report”): “CBP is aggressively working to hire agents required under the statutory floor, and is assessing how modifications and improvements to various parts of our rigorous multi­step frontline hiring process, which is intended to ensure that only the best qualified applicants are hired, may impact the time to onboard the additional 5,000 agents.”
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 9
10. All documents relating to following assertion on page 12 of the 90­Day Progress Report: “CBP has made requests for the following authorities from OPM, which are currently pending OPM review/approval: ● Amendment to qualifications standard for Border Patrol Agents, GS­1896 ● Special salary rates for remote and hard­to­fill locations”
11. All documents relating to the directive in Section E of the Secretary’s February 17, 2017 Memorandum, “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest,” that the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement “take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional operational and mission support and legal staff and support activities,” including all documents: a. Reflecting the legal authority to implement that directive; b. Reflecting budgetary authorization to implement that directive; c. Discussing the need to expeditiously hire 10,000 ICE agent and officers; d. Assessing the benefits or costs of implementing that directive; e. Discussing the role of non­governmental corporate entities in providing personnel or services in implementing that directive.
12. All documents supporting, assessing, or contradicting the assertion, in Section B of the Secretary’s February 20, 2017 Memorandum, “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement Policies,” that “CBP has insufficient agents/officers to effectively detect, track, and apprehend all aliens illegally entering the United States.”
13. Any written acquisition plan, as that phrase is used in Title 48 of the Federal Code of Regulations, relating to any non­government entity providing services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
14. All documents containing, discussing, or memorializing communications with any officer or member of the National Border Patrol Council or National ICE Council regarding any non­governmental corporate entity that has been hired or otherwise contracted to provide services related to enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States.
15. In addition to the records requested above, we also request records describing the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and locations and custodians searched, and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this request. If your agency uses FOIA questionnaires or certifications completed by individual custodians or components to determine whether they possess responsive materials or to describe how they conducted searches, we also request any such records prepared in connection with the processing of this request.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 9
Except where otherwise noted, the timeframe for this request is November 8, 2016 through the date that searches are conducted for records responsive to this FOIA request.
For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” refers to any activity related to any of the following: monitoring border crossing; questioning, apprehending, or transporting individuals suspected of unlawfully crossing the border; investigating or identifying individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; apprehending individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; or any logistical or administrative support related to any of those activities (including but not limited to transportation, surveillance, or data­maintenance). For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” does not encompass activities related exclusively to the management or maintenance of detention facilities.
RESPONSIVE RECORDS
We ask that you search for records from all components of DHS that may be reasonably likely to produce responsive results, including but not limited to the Office of the Secretary and its component offices, the Commissioner (or acting Commissioner) of CBP, the Deputy Commissioner (or acting Deputy Commissioner of CBP), the CBP Office of Field Operations, the U.S. Border Patrol, Office of the Director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE Management and Administration, ICE Office of Acquisition Management, the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Undersecretary for Management, the Chief Financial Officer, and CBP’s Frontline Hiring Program Management Office. We also ask that you search all systems of record, including electronic and paper, in use at your agency, as well as files or emails in the personal custody of your employees, such as personal email accounts, as required by FOIA and to the extent that they are reasonably likely to contain responsive records. The Protect Democracy Project would prefer records in electronic format, saved as PDF documents, and transmitted via email or CD­rom.
We ask that all types of records and all record systems be searched to discover records responsive to our request. We seek records in all media and formats. This includes, but is not limited to: agendas, manifests, calendars, schedules, notes, and any prepared documentation for meetings, calls, teleconferences, or other discussions responsive to our request; voicemails; e­mails; e­mail attachments; talking points; faxes; training documents and guides; tables of contents and contents of binders; documents pertaining to instruction and coordination of couriers; and any other materials. However, you need not produce press clippings and news articles that are unaccompanied by any commentary (e.g., an email forwarding a news article with no additional commentary in the email thread).
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 9
If you make a determination that any responsive record, or any segment within a record, is exempt from disclosure, we ask that you provide an index of those records at the time you transmit all other responsive records. In the index, please include a description of the record and the reason for exclusion with respect to each individual exempt record or exempt portion of a record, as provided by Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). When you deem a portion of a record exempt, we ask that the remainder of the record to be provided, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUEST
We request that you expedite the processing of this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e). This request meets the criteria for expedited processing because there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” this request is “made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;” and this request concerns “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that could affect public confidence.” 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(e)(ii), (iv). As explained below in more detail in the section of this request regarding a fee waiver, The Protect Democracy Project intends to disseminate the information obtained in response to this request.
The role of private contractors in implementing immigration policy is a matter of urgent public importance. As an initial matter, immigration policy is currently a matter of the highest public concern. It was a driving issue in the 2016 presidential campaign,1 and has been the subject of high­profile executive action in the new administration.2 Beyond formal policy, the day to day implementation of immigration policy generates intense public interest.3 Critically relevant to this public debate is the question of what means the
See, e.g., Janelle Ross, From Mexican Rapists to Bad Hombres, the Trump Campaign in Two Moments, Wash. Post, Oct. 16, 2016; Fox News, Trump Stands by Statements on Mexican Illegal Immigrants, Surprised by Backlash, Fox News, July 4, 2015, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/04/trump­stands­by­views­dangerous­mexican ­illegal­immigrants­admits­surprised­by.html. 2 See, e.g., Julie Hirscheld Davis et. al. Trump to Order Mexican Border Wall and Curtail Immigration, New York Times, Jan. 24, 2017; White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Donald J. Trump Taking Action Against Illegal Immigration, June 28, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the­press­office/2017/06/28/president­donald­j­trump­takin g­action­against­illegal­immigration. 3 See, e.g., Scott Martelle, We're Seeing the Results of Trump's New Border Enforcement System. They Aren't Pretty, L.A. Times, Feb. 27, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, The Border
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 9
government will utilize to meet the increased levels of personnel called for in connection with border and interior enforcement.4 The public has a right to learn precisely what role private contractors may play in implementing those policies. In the absence of such information, the public cannot adequately assess the contours of federal immigration policy.
The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in accordance with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.5 The Protect Democracy Project has been recognized as an organization that meets the statutory criteria for expedited processing. Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., No. 17­CV­00842 (CRC), 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017). The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
It is therefore incumbent upon the government and urgent for your office to share any responsive records in an expedited. The Department’s policies and practices
Patrol Was Primed for President Trump, The New Yorker, Feb. 17, 2017, available at http://www.newyorker.com/news/news­desk/the­border­patrol­was­primed­for­president­ trump. 4 See, e.g., Dan Frosch & Laura Meckler, In Rush for New Agents, Border Patrol Weighs Changing Polygraph Program, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 13, 2017; Amanda Holpuch, White House Plan to Hire More Border Agents Raises Vetting Fear, Ex­Senior Official Says, The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2017, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us­news/2017/feb/26/trump­plan­border­agents­vetting­ja mes­tomsheck; Brian Naylor, Trump's Plan To Hire 15,000 Border Patrol And ICE Agents Won't Be Easy, NPR, Feb. 23, 2017, available at http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516712980/trumps­plan­to­hire­15­000­border­patrol­and ­ice­agents­wont­be­easy­to­fulfill. 5 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/going­to­court­for­civil­servants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats­legal­basis­syria­strikes­administration­must­ackno wledge­limits­its­power­start­war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 9
regarding private contractors will inform public understanding of immigration enforcement priorities, the efficacy of federal immigration policy, and the safeguards protecting individuals at the border. The public must have an opportunity to understand the full picture of how the Department navigates those issues.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby affirm that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FEE WAIVER
FOIA provides that any fees associated with a request are waived if “disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in connection with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
In addition to satisfying the requirements for a waiver of fees associated with the search and processing of records, The Protect Democracy Project is entitled to a waiver of all fees except “reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Federal law mandates that fees be limited to document duplication costs for any requester that qualifies as a representative of the news media. Id. The Protect Democracy Project operates in the tradition of 501(c)(3) good government organizations that qualify under FOIA as “news media organizations.” Like those organizations, the purpose of The Protect Democracy Project is to “gather information of potential interest to a segment of the public, use its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into distinct work, and distribute that work to an audience.” Nat’s Sec. Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Indeed, The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.6 The Protect Democracy Project will
6 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/27/watchdog­group­citing ­integrity­of­civil­service­sues­trump­to­find­out­if­feds­are­being­bullied/?utm_term=.8 647ab128f3e; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/going­to­court­for­civil­servants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 9
disseminate information and analysis about this request – and any information obtained in response – through its website (protectdemocracy.org); its Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/protctdemocracy), which has more than 10,000 followers; its email list of approximately 20,000 people; and sharing information with other members of the press.
*** Given the 20­day statutory deadline, we hope to be as helpful as possible in clarifying or answering questions about our request. Please contact me at larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org or (202) 516­7885 if you require any additional information. We appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely,
Larry Schwartztol Counsel The Protect Democracy Project
Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats­legal­basis­syria­strikes­administration­must­ackno wledge­limits­its­power­start­war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 2

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 7
August 4, 2017
Dionne Hardy FOIA Officer Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Suite 9204 Washington, DC 20503
Re: Freedom of Information Act
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, The Protect Democracy Project hereby requests that your office produce within 20 business days the following records (see below for clarity on the types of records sought):
1. All communications with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or any component within DHS, regarding DHS’s efforts to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as directed by Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” (Jan. 25, 2017), or its efforts to hire 10,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and officers, as directed by Sec. of Homeland Security, Memorandum, “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” (Feb. 17, 2017).
2. All documents reflecting the determinations by DHS, or any of its components, as to which activities related to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States constitute “commercial activities” and which constitute “inherently governmental activities” as those terms are used in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76.
3. In addition to the records requested above, we also request records describing the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and locations and custodians searched, and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this request. If your agency uses FOIA questionnaires or certifications completed by individual custodians or components to determine whether they possess responsive materials or to describe how they conducted searches, we also request any such records prepared in connection with the processing of this request.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 7
The timeframe for this Request 1 is November 8, 2016 to the date that searches are conducted for records responsive to this FOIA request; the timeframe for Request No. 2 is January 1, 2005 through the date that searches are conducted for records responsive to this FOIA request; the timeframe for Request No. 3 is the date this request is received by OMB to the date that searches are conducted for responsive records.
For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” refers to any activity related to any of the following: monitoring border crossing; questioning, apprehending, or transporting individuals suspected of unlawfully crossing the border; investigating or identifying individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; apprehending individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; or any logistical or administrative support related to any of those activities (including but not limited to transportation, surveillance, or data-maintenance). For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” does not encompass activities related exclusively to the management or maintenance of detention facilities.
RESPONSIVE RECORDS
We ask that all types of records and all record systems be searched to discover records responsive to our request. We seek records in all media and formats. This includes, but is not limited to: agendas, manifests, calendars, schedules, notes, and any prepared documentation for meetings, calls, teleconferences, or other discussions responsive to our request; voicemails; e-mails; e-mail attachments; talking points; faxes; training documents and guides; tables of contents and contents of binders; documents pertaining to instruction and coordination of couriers; and any other materials. However, you need not produce press clippings and news articles that are unaccompanied by any commentary (e.g., an email forwarding a news article with no additional commentary in the email thread).
We ask that you search for records from all components of OMB that may be reasonably likely to produce responsive results. We also ask that you search all systems of record, including electronic and paper, in use at your agency, as well as files or emails in the personal custody of your employees, such as personal email accounts, as required by FOIA and to the extent that they are reasonably likely to contain responsive records. The Protect Democracy Project would prefer records in electronic format, saved as PDF documents, and transmitted via email or CD-rom.
If you make a determination that any responsive record, or any segment within a record, is exempt from disclosure, we ask that you provide an index of those records at the time you transmit all other responsive records. In the index, please include a description of the record and the reason for exclusion with respect to each individual exempt record or exempt portion of a record, as provided by Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). When you deem a portion of a
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 7
record exempt, we ask that the remainder of the record to be provided, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUEST
We request that you expedite the processing of this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) and 5 C.F.R. § 1303.10(d). This request meets the criteria for expedited processing because there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” this request is “made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;” and this request concerns “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that could affect public confidence.” 5 C.F.R. § 1303.10(d) (ii), (iv). As explained below in more detail in the section of this request regarding a fee waiver, The Protect Democracy Project intends to disseminate the information obtained in response to this request.
The role of private contractors in implementing immigration policy is a matter of urgent public importance. As an initial matter, immigration policy is currently a matter of the highest public concern. It was a driving issue in the 2016 presidential campaign,1 and has been the subject of high-profile executive action in the new administration.2 Beyond formal policy, the day to day implementation of immigration policy generates intense public interest.3 Critically relevant to this public debate is the question of what means the government will utilize to meet the increased levels of personnel called for in connection with border and interior enforcement.4 The public has a right to learn
1 See, e.g., Janelle Ross, From Mexican Rapists to Bad Hombres, the Trump Campaign in Two Moments, Wash. Post, Oct. 16, 2016; Fox News, Trump Stands by Statements on Mexican Illegal Immigrants, Surprised by Backlash, Fox News, July 4, 2015, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/04/trump-stands-by-views-dangerousmexican-illegal-immigrants-admits-surprised-by.html. 2 See, e.g., Julie Hirscheld Davis et. al. Trump to Order Mexican Border Wall and Curtail Immigration, New York Times, Jan. 24, 2017; White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Donald J. Trump Taking Action Against Illegal Immigration, June 28, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/06/28/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-against-illegal-immigration. 3 See, e.g., Scott Martelle, We're Seeing the Results of Trump's New Border Enforcement System. They Aren't Pretty, L.A. Times, Feb. 27, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, The Border Patrol Was Primed for President Trump, The New Yorker, Feb. 17, 2017, available at http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-was-primed-for-presidenttrump. 4 See, e.g., Dan Frosch & Laura Meckler, In Rush for New Agents, Border Patrol Weighs Changing Polygraph Program, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 13, 2017; Amanda Holpuch, White House Plan to Hire More Border Agents Raises Vetting Fear, Ex-Senior Official Says, The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2017, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 7
precisely what role private contractors may play in implementing those policies. In the absence of such information, the public cannot adequately assess the contours of federal immigration policy.
The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in accordance with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.5 The Protect Democracy Project has been recognized as an organization that meets the statutory criteria for expedited processing. Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., No. 17-CV-00842 (CRC), 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017). The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
It is therefore incumbent upon the government and urgent for your office to share any responsive records in an expedited. The administration’s policies and practices regarding private contractors will inform public understanding of immigration enforcement priorities, the efficacy of federal immigration policy, and the safeguards protecting individuals at the border. The public must have an opportunity to understand the full picture of how the administration navigates those issues.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby affirm that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FEE WAIVER
FOIA provides that any fees associated with a request are waived if “disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not
news/2017/feb/26/trump-plan-border-agents-vetting-james-tomsheck; Brian Naylor, Trump's Plan To Hire 15,000 Border Patrol And ICE Agents Won't Be Easy, NPR, Feb. 23, 2017, available at http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516712980/trumps-plan-to-hire15-000-border-patrol-and-ice-agents-wont-be-easy-to-fulfill. 5 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/goingto-court-for-civil-servants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-legal-basis-syria-strikes-administrationmust-acknowledge-limits-its-power-start-war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 7
primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in connection with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
In addition to satisfying the requirements for a waiver of fees associated with the search and processing of records, The Protect Democracy Project is entitled to a waiver of all fees except “reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Federal law mandates that fees be limited to document duplication costs for any requester that qualifies as a representative of the news media. Id. The Protect Democracy Project operates in the tradition of 501(c)(3) good government organizations that qualify under FOIA as “news media organizations.” Like those organizations, the purpose of The Protect Democracy Project is to “gather information of potential interest to a segment of the public, use its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into distinct work, and distribute that work to an audience.” Nat’s Sec. Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Indeed, The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.6 The Protect Democracy Project will disseminate information and analysis about this request – and any information obtained in response – through its website (protectdemocracy.org); its Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/protctdemocracy), which has more than 10,000 followers; its email list of approximately 20,000 people; and sharing information with other members of the press.
* * *
Given the 20-day statutory deadline, we hope to be as helpful as possible in clarifying or answering questions about our request. Please contact me at larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org or (202) 516-7885 if you require any additional
6 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/27/watchdog-groupciting-integrity-of-civil-service-sues-trump-to-find-out-if-feds-are-beingbullied/?utm_term=.8647ab128f3e; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/going-to-court-for-civilservants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-legal-basis-syria-strikes-administration-mustacknowledge-limits-its-power-start-war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-3 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 7 information. We appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely, Larry Schwartztol Counsel The Protect Democracy Project
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 3

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 7
August 4, 2017
U.S. Office of Personnel Management FOIA Requester Service Center 1900 E Street, N.W. Room 4458 Washington, D.C. 20415-7900
Re: Freedom of Information Act
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, The Protect Democracy Project hereby requests that your office produce within 20 business days the following records (see below for clarity on the types of records sought):
1. All documents, including communications, memoranda, assessments, and final determinations, related to the requests by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) for various hiring authorities outlined on pages 12 and 13 of the Department of Homeland Security’s “90-day Progress Report to the President on Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” (Apr. 25, 2017), available at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3553905/Borderreport.pdf, including but not limited to: a. Any request by the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer or any other representative of DHS for “Direct Hire Authority” related to personnel whose duties relate to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States b. Any request by DHS to amend the qualifications standard for Border Patrol Agent c. Any request from DHS for special salary rates for remote and hard-to-fill locations d. Any request from DHS for Dual Compensation Waivers e. Any request by DHS to conduct a National Agency check or possible alternatives
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 7
f. Any request by DHS relating to interchange agreements relating to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States
g. Any request by DHS to extend the probationary period for employees involved in the enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States
2. All communications with DHS or other documents regarding which functions related to enforcement of any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States constitute “commercial activities” and which constitute “inherently governmental activities” as those terms are used in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76.
3. In addition to the records requested above, we also request records describing the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and locations and custodians searched, and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this request. If your agency uses FOIA questionnaires or certifications completed by individual custodians or components to determine whether they possess responsive materials or to describe how they conducted searches, we also request any such records prepared in connection with the processing of this request.
The timeframe for Request 1 is January 20, 2017 to the date that searches are conducted for records responsive to this FOIA request; the timeframe for Request No. 2 is January 1, 2005 through the date that searches are conducted for records responsive to this FOIA request; the timeframe for Request No. 3 is the date this request is received by OPM to the date that searches are conducted for responsive records.
For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” refers to any activity related to any of the following: monitoring border crossing; questioning, apprehending, or transporting individuals suspected of unlawfully crossing the border; investigating or identifying individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; apprehending individuals suspected of being in the country unlawfully; or any logistical or administrative support related to any of those activities (including but not limited to transportation, surveillance, or data-maintenance). For purposes of this request, the phrase “enforcing any immigration law at the border or in the interior of the United States” does not encompass activities related exclusively to the management of detention facilities.
RESPONSIVE RECORDS
We ask that all types of records and all record systems be searched to discover records responsive to our request. We seek records in all media and formats. This includes, but is not limited to: agendas, manifests, calendars, schedules, notes, and any prepared documentation for meetings, calls, teleconferences, or other discussions
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 7
responsive to our request; voicemails; e-mails; e-mail attachments; talking points; faxes; training documents and guides; tables of contents and contents of binders; documents pertaining to instruction and coordination of couriers; and any other materials. However, you need not produce press clippings and news articles that are unaccompanied by any commentary (e.g., an email forwarding a news article with no additional commentary in the email thread).
We ask that you search for records from all components of OPM that may be reasonably likely to produce responsive results. We also ask that you search all systems of record, including electronic and paper, in use at your agency, as well as files or emails in the personal custody of your employees, such as personal email accounts, as required by FOIA and to the extent that they are reasonably likely to contain responsive records. The Protect Democracy Project would prefer records in electronic format, saved as PDF documents, and transmitted via email or CD-rom.
If you make a determination that any responsive record, or any segment within a record, is exempt from disclosure, we ask that you provide an index of those records at the time you transmit all other responsive records. In the index, please include a description of the record and the reason for exclusion with respect to each individual exempt record or exempt portion of a record, as provided by Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). When you deem a portion of a record exempt, we ask that the remainder of the record to be provided, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUEST
We request that you expedite the processing of this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). This request meets the criteria for expedited processing because there is “[a]n urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity,” this request is “made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;” and this request concerns “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that could affect public confidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(ii). As explained below in more detail in the section of this request regarding a fee waiver, The Protect Democracy Project intends to disseminate the information obtained in response to this request.
The role of private contractors in implementing immigration policy is a matter of urgent public importance. As an initial matter, immigration policy is currently a matter of the highest public concern. It was a driving issue in the 2016 presidential campaign,1
1 See, e.g., Janelle Ross, From Mexican Rapists to Bad Hombres, the Trump Campaign in Two Moments, Wash. Post, Oct. 16, 2016; Fox News, Trump Stands by Statements on Mexican Illegal Immigrants, Surprised by Backlash, Fox News, July 4, 2015, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/04/trump-stands-by-views-dangerousmexican-illegal-immigrants-admits-surprised-by.html.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 7
and has been the subject of high-profile executive action in the new administration.2 Beyond formal policy, the day to day implementation of immigration policy generates intense public interest.3 Critically relevant to this public debate is the question of what means the government will utilize to meet the increased levels of personnel called for in connection with border and interior enforcement.4 The public has a right to learn precisely what role private contractors may play in implementing those policies. In the absence of such information, the public cannot adequately assess the contours of federal immigration policy.
The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in accordance with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.5 The Protect Democracy Project has been recognized as an organization that meets the statutory criteria for expedited processing. Protect
2 See, e.g., Julie Hirscheld Davis et. al. Trump to Order Mexican Border Wall and Curtail Immigration, New York Times, Jan. 24, 2017; White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Donald J. Trump Taking Action Against Illegal Immigration, June 28, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/06/28/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-against-illegal-immigration. 3 See, e.g., Scott Martelle, We're Seeing the Results of Trump's New Border Enforcement System. They Aren't Pretty, L.A. Times, Feb. 27, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, The Border Patrol Was Primed for President Trump, The New Yorker, Feb. 17, 2017, available at http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-was-primed-for-presidenttrump. 4 See, e.g., Dan Frosch & Laura Meckler, In Rush for New Agents, Border Patrol Weighs Changing Polygraph Program, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 13, 2017; Amanda Holpuch, White House Plan to Hire More Border Agents Raises Vetting Fear, Ex-Senior Official Says, The Guardian, Feb. 26, 2017, available at https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2017/feb/26/trump-plan-border-agents-vetting-james-tomsheck; Brian Naylor, Trump's Plan To Hire 15,000 Border Patrol And ICE Agents Won't Be Easy, NPR, Feb. 23, 2017, available at http://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516712980/trumps-plan-to-hire15-000-border-patrol-and-ice-agents-wont-be-easy-to-fulfill. 5 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/goingto-court-for-civil-servants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-legal-basis-syria-strikes-administrationmust-acknowledge-limits-its-power-start-war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 7
Democracy Project, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., No. 17-CV-00842 (CRC), 2017 WL 2992076 (D.D.C. July 13, 2017). The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
It is therefore incumbent upon the government and urgent for your office to share any responsive records in an expedited manner. The administration’s policies and practices regarding private contractors will inform public understanding of immigration enforcement priorities, the efficacy of federal immigration policy, and the safeguards protecting individuals at the border. The public must have an opportunity to understand the full picture of how the administration navigates those issues.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby affirm that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FEE WAIVER
FOIA provides that any fees associated with a request are waived if “disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The core mission of The Protect Democracy Project, a new organization awaiting 501(c)(3) status, is to inform public understanding on operations and activities of the government. This request is submitted in connection with the organization’s mission to gather and disseminate information that is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of executive branch operations and activities. The Protect Democracy Project has no commercial interests.
In addition to satisfying the requirements for a waiver of fees associated with the search and processing of records, The Protect Democracy Project is entitled to a waiver of all fees except “reasonable standard charges for document duplication.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Federal law mandates that fees be limited to document duplication costs for any requester that qualifies as a representative of the news media. Id. The Protect Democracy Project operates in the tradition of 501(c)(3) good government organizations that qualify under FOIA as “news media organizations.” Like those organizations, the purpose of The Protect Democracy Project is to “gather information of potential interest to a segment of the public, use its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into distinct work, and distribute that work to an audience.” Nat’s Sec. Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Indeed, The Protect Democracy Project has routinely demonstrated the ability to disseminate information about its FOIA requests to a wide audience.6 The Protect Democracy Project will
6 See, e.g., Lisa Rein, Watchdog group, citing “integrity of civil service,” sues Trump to find out if feds are being bullied, Wash. Post, Apr. 27, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/27/watchdog-groupciting-integrity-of-civil-service-sues-trump-to-find-out-if-feds-are-being-
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 1-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 7
disseminate information and analysis about this request – and any information obtained in response – through its website (protectdemocracy.org); its Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/protctdemocracy), which has more than 10,000 followers; its email list of approximately 20,000 people; and sharing information with other members of the press.
* * * Given the 20-day statutory deadline, we hope to be as helpful as possible in clarifying or answering questions about our request. Please contact me at larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org or (202) 516-7885 if you require any additional information. We appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely,
Larry Schwartztol Counsel The Protect Democracy Project
bullied/?utm_term=.8647ab128f3e; Ben Berwick, Going to Court for Civil Servants, Take Care, April 28, 2017, https://takecareblog.com/blog/going-to-court-for-civilservants; Charlie Savage, Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2017, https://nyti.ms/2pX82OV; Justin Florence, What’s the Legal Basis for the Syria Strikes? The Administration Must Acknowledge Limits on its Power to Start a War, Lawfare, May 8, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-legal-basis-syria-strikes-administration-mustacknowledge-limits-its-power-start-war.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #163, Washington, DC 20006 FOIA@protectdemocracy.org

 
 Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 12 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Defendants.

17-cv-02118-RDM

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to this Court’s order dated January 4, 2018, Plaintiff The Protect Democracy Project, Inc., and Defendants, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), by and through their undersigned counsel, report as follows the status of this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 13, 2017 in connection with FOIA requests that Plaintiff submitted to Defendants in August 2017 (the “August 2017 Requests”). Defendants filed an answer on November 13, 2017, and a status conference was held on January 4, 2018. At the status conference, the parties informed the Court of their agreement that no later than February 3, 2018: (1) Defendants would provide Plaintiff with a description of the searches conducted to identify responsive records and a production schedule; and (2) Defendants would begin making productions to Plaintiff on a rolling basis. The Court thereafter entered a minute

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 12 Filed 03/02/18 Page 2 of 5
order requiring the parties to file a joint status report no later than March 3, 2018 and to appear before the court for the next status conference on March 13, 2018.
Appendix A summarizes the information Defendants have thus far provided on searches conducted and on proposed production schedules. It also summarizes areas where the parties agree that Defendants DHS, CBP, and OPM will provide further information with respect to: (1) the scope of the offices, databases, and custodians searched; (2) the search terms applied; and (3) for Defendants DHS and CBP, a production schedule.
Plaintiff has identified to Defendants questions regarding: (1) the scope of the searches conducted by DHS, CBP, and OPM; and (2) the pace of OMB’s proposed timeline for reviewing and producing responsive records.
Plaintiff understands that Defendants are working to provide the pending information shown in Appendix A prior to the status conference scheduled on March 13, 2018. Plaintiff expects Defendants to provide complete search descriptions and proposed production schedules by the date of the status conference, such that the parties are in a position to agree on a production schedule at the status conference. If Plaintiff’s expectation is not met, Plaintiff may request that the Court impose a production schedule by order.
Conclusion As noted above, the parties are continuing to engage in discussions to resolve any outstanding issues. The parties will provide the Court with an update to Appendix A prior to the status conference scheduled in this case on March 13, 2018.
2

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 12 Filed 03/02/18 Page 3 of 5

March 2, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

Jessie K. Liu (D.C. Bar No. 472845) United States Attorney
Daniel F. Van Horn (D.C. Bar No. 924092) Chief, Civil Division
/s/ Scott Leeson Sroka Scott Leeson Sroka Member of the New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7113 scott.sroka@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ Nikhil V. Gore Jennifer H. Saperstein (D.C. Bar No. 989743) Nikhil V. Gore (D.C. Bar No. 1019777) Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-5918 ngore@cov.com
Laurence M. Schwartztol The Protect Democracy Project 10 Ware Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (202) 856-9191 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 12 Filed 03/02/18 Page 4 of 5

I. DHS
Req. Custodians/Components or No. Databases Searched 1-15 Pending.

Appendix A to Status Report on Case No. 17-cv-02118

Search Terms

Productions and Proposed Production Schedule

[“immigration law” and (“enforce*” OR “contract*” OR “OPM” OR “Office of Personnel Management”)] OR “Title 48 of the Federal Code of Regulations” OR “Title 48” OR “National Border Patrol Council” OR “National ICE Council”

Pending.

II. CBP
Req. Custodians/Components or No. Databases Searched
1-15 CBP has searched the following offices: • Human Resources; • Office of the Commissioner; • Office of Field Operations Mission Support; • Office of Border Patrol; and • Office of Acquisition.
Description of databases and custodians is pending.

Search Terms Pending.

III. OMB

Req. Custodians/Components or No. Databases Searched

Search Terms

1 OMB has searched 9 custodians with (“ICE” OR “CBP” OR “DHS” OR agent!)

the following titles:

AND hir!

• Associate Director

• Deputy Associate Director

Productions and Proposed Production Schedule Pending.
Productions and Proposed Production Schedule OMB’s searches have identified 12,894 documents. OMB has proposed a production schedule pursuant to which it would review and produce approximately 300 documents per month.

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 12 Filed 03/02/18 Page 5 of 5

Req. Custodians/Components or No. Databases Searched

Search Terms

Productions and Proposed Production Schedule

• Branch Chief for Homeland

Security

• Budget Examiners

• Director

• Chief of Staff

• Senior Advisor to the Director

2 OMB has searched 10 custodians “commercial activities” OR “inherently

with the following titles:

governmental activities” OR “A-76”

• Associate Director

• Deputy Associate Director

• Branch Chief for Homeland

Security

• Budget Examiners

• Director

• Chief of Staff

• Senior Advisor to the Director

Note: The parties are discussing refinements to search terms and adjustments to the proposed production schedule.
OMB’s searches have identified 1,554 documents. OMB has proposed a production schedule pursuant to which it would review and produce approximately 300 documents per month. Note: The parties are discussing refinements to search terms and adjustments to the proposed production schedule.

IV. OPM
Req. Custodians/Components or No. Databases Searched 1-3 Pending.

Search Terms Pending.

Productions and Proposed Production Schedule
OPM has identified 350-400 pages of potentially responsive documents, and is continuing to gather records. OPM reports that “[i]dentification of exempt portions of all records collected may require the month of March.”

2

 
 Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 14 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

PROTECT DEMOCRACY

)

PROJECT, INC.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 17-cv-02118 (RDM)

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

Pursuant to the Court’s order from the bench at the Parties’ March 13, 2018, status

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

Border Protection (“CBP”), Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and Office of Personnel

Management (“OPM”) (collectively, “the Defendants”), hereby provide the Court with the

following Status Report and Proposed Production Schedule:

• DHS – DHS reports that its search for part (b) of Plaintiff’s request is complete and

yielded 142 pages of potentially responsive documents. Searches were halted for

parts (s) and (c) when a partial search for each yielded over 40 gigabytes of data,

resulting in over 80 gigabytes for both searches so far. DHS could not continue the

search because the Office of the Chief Information Officer (“OCIO”) does not have

the storage capacity to maintain a response that large and the DHS Office of Privacy

(“PRIV”) likewise does not have capacity to receive the response. DHS is unable

to determine the exact number of documents of pages responsive to parts (a) and

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 14 Filed 04/13/18 Page 2 of 4 (c). DHS is able to complete the 142 pages responsive to part (b) by May 15, 2018. DHS can continue to produce 250 pages per month from that point forward.
• CBP – CBP has completed most of its searches, which have resulted in approximately 21,120 e-mails (excluding attachments) that are potentially responsive and a contract that is potentially responsive. OPM also referred two documents, totaling eight pages, to CBP. CBP proposes to produce 500 pages per month to Plaintiff, beginning on June 22, 2018.
• OMB – OMB has completed its searches, which resulted in approximately 25,000 potentially responsive documents. Approximately 23,500 of these documents were the result of the search performed in response to Plaintiff’s request regarding hiring. OMB proposes to review 300 documents per month and begin producing documents every 30 days beginning on May 14, 2018.
2

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 14 Filed 04/13/18 Page 3 of 4

• OPM – On April 6, 2018, OPM sent Plaintiff a response letter, stating that its searches had resulted in 400 pages of potentially responsive material. OPM referred 340 of those pages to DHS for direct response to Plaintiff. OPM sent the remaining 60 pages to DHS for consultation and is awaiting their return from DHS to produce to Plaintiff. On April 12, 2018, CBP referred eight pages of records to OPM, which OPM believes were already captured and are duplicates of pages sent to DHS for consultation.

Dated: April 13, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU, D.C. Bar No. 472845 United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division
By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka
SCOTT LEESON SROKA, Member of New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: 202-252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov

3

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 14 Filed 04/13/18 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of April, 2018, that service of the foregoing Status Report and Proposed Production Schedule has been made on counsel of record through the Court’s ECF system.
/s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Office: (202) 252-7113 Fax: (202) 252-2599 Email: Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov

 
 Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 33 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.
Plaintiff
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Defendants.

17-cv-02118-RDM

JOINT STATUS REPORT Plaintiff The Protect Democracy Project, Inc., and Defendants the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), by and through their undersigned counsel, report as follows the status of this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 13, 2017 in connection with FOIA requests that Plaintiff submitted to Defendants in August 2017. The parties submitted a joint status report on March 15, 2019. See Joint Status Report (ECF No. 31). In the joint status report, the parties stated that Defendants DHS and OMB were continuing to review and produce records in response to Plaintiff’s requests, and that there were no pending action items related to Defendants CBP and OPM. The Court subsequently entered an order directing the parties to appear for a status conference on April 8, 2019. See Minute Order (Mar. 20, 2019). By joint request of the parties, the status conference was cancelled and

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 33 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 4
the parties were directed to file a further status report on or before May 6, 2019. See Minute Order (Apr. 4, 2019).
Overview of Current Status Plaintiff and Defendants have been engaged in ongoing discussions regarding the potential resolution of this matter. The parties jointly report as follows: 1. Defendants CBP and OPM have completed their planned productions in this case. 2. Defendants DHS and OMB have collectively produced 968 pages of records. After reviewing the productions to date, Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Defendants and the parties have agreed that DHS and OMB will not make further productions in this case. 3. Having reviewed the redaction summaries provided by Defendants CBP and OPM, Plaintiff has determined that it will not challenge the redactions made to date. 4. Each party reserves its position on the issue of attorneys’ fees (including, without limitation, Plaintiff’s eligibility for fees and all issues that may bear on Plaintiff’s entitlement to fees) and the parties will continue to confer in this regard. The parties would be happy to address any questions the Court may have on this agreement. Conclusion The parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order directing that: 1. The production schedules for Defendants DHS and OMB are modified such that DHS and OMB are no longer required to make future productions in this case; and 2. The parties submit a further status report on or before June 21, 2019.
2

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 33 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

JESSIE K. LIU, D.C. Bar No. 472845 United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar No. 924092 Chief, Civil Division
By: /s/ Scott Leeson Sroka SCOTT LEESON SROKA Member of the New York Bar Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: 202-252-7113 Scott.Sroka@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ David J. Iraola Nikhil V. Gore (D.C. Bar No. 1019777) David J. Iraola (D.C. Bar No. 230254) Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-5904 diraola@cov.com
Laurence M. Schwartztol The Protect Democracy Project 10 Ware Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (202) 856-9191 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 33 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DAVID J. IRAOLA, certify that on May 6, 2019, true and correct copies of this Joint Status Report were served electronically on all registered counsel of record via ECF.

Dated: May 6, 2019

/s/ David J. Iraola David J. Iraola (D.C. Bar No. 230254) Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 662-5904 diraola@cov.com

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 42 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC.,
Plaintiff
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Defendants.

17-cv-02118-RDM

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court’s March 5, 2020, Minute Order, Plaintiff The Protect Democracy Project, Inc., and Defendants the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), by and through their undersigned counsel, report as follows the status of this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case. As indicated in the most recent status report, the parties have been conferring about the issue of attorneys’ fees in this case and in case number 17-cv-2202. The government reports that progress has recently been somewhat delayed, however, due to the ongoing work disruptions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has kept government counsel away from the office since March (while simultaneously coordinating his three children’s remote learning), and by government counsel’s significantly-enhanced workload arising from the unavailability due to serious illness, since early April, of his colleague with whom he normally shares supervisory responsibility for the appellate matters of the Civil

Case 1:17-cv-02118-RDM Document 42 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Further, government counsel had two arguments in the

D.C. Circuit on Friday, May 15, 2020, and preparation for those arguments, which presented

unsettled legal questions involving the Prison Litigation Reform Act, required significant time

and greatly limited counsel’s time for other cases. Counsel for the parties, however, have

remained in touch and hope that in the coming period they will be able to make further progress

toward resolving both this matter and case 17-cv-2202.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully suggest that they be directed to submit a further joint

status report by June 12, 2020. If the parties succeed in resolving this litigation before that time,

they will promptly inform the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL R. SHERWIN (N.Y. Bar 4444188) Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
DANIEL F. VAN HORN (D.C. Bar No. 924092) Chief, Civil Division
By: /s/ __________ Peter C. Pfaffenroth (D.C. Bar No. 496637) Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 peter.pfaffenroth@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ _____________ Nikhil V. Gore (D.C. Bar No. 1019777) David J. Iraola (D.C. Bar No. 230254) Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-5918 ngore@cov.com
Laurence M. Schwartztol The Protect Democracy Project 125 Walnut Street, Suite 202 Watertown, MA 02472 (202) 856-9191 larry.schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2