Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05782/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05782-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONA NAJAFI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05782-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

LETTER; DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 44

On September 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant case against Defendants, challenging 

Defendants’ alleged withholding of adjudications of case-by-case waivers of Presidential 

Proclamation 9645 (“PP9645”). (Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1.) PP 9645 prohibits the entry of 

immigrants and non-immigrants from Iran and other countries, but permits consular officers to 

grant waivers under certain circumstances.

Pending before the Court are: (1) a November 27, 2019 discovery letter regarding 

Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, and (2) Plaintiffs’ January 3, 2020 request for a Rule 26(f) case 

management conference. (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 36; Pls.’ Rule 26(f) Mot., Dkt. No. 44.)

A. Discovery Letter

Each interrogatory concerns the information needed to determine whether a Beneficiary 

Plaintiff’s entry would not pose a threat to national security or public safety of the United States. 

(Discovery Letter at 2.) The Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently responded to the 

interrogatories at this point.

First, Plaintiffs challenge the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 22, in which 

Defendants listed the specific information that the consular officer previously requested of each 

Beneficiary Plaintiff. (Discovery Letter at 3.) Plaintiffs fail to explain what more is needed. 

Case 4:19-cv-05782-KAW Document 50 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants failed to “indicate, where, within the five steps consular officers 

must follow to adjudicate a waiver . . . that Plaintiffs’ waiver adjudications are located.” (Id.) As 

Defendants correctly point out, however, this information was not requested in the interrogatory, 

which asked for what specific information was still needed. (See id. at 5.) Therefore, the 

responses to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 22 are sufficient. To the extent that Defendants have 

received information from the Beneficiary Plaintiffs after the November 4th responses were 

prepared, however, if Defendants require more information as a result of those responses, 

Defendants have an obligation to supplement their responses.

Second, Plaintiffs challenge the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 23-25, in which 

Defendants stated that the information required was listed in Interrogatory No. 22. This is because 

the Beneficiary Plaintiffs who are the subject of Interrogatory Nos. 23-25 are derivative 

applicants, whose waiver consideration is determined by that of the primary applicant who is the 

subject of Interrogatory No. 22. (Discovery Letter at 5.) As the response to Interrogatory No. 22 

was sufficient, the Court finds these responses sufficient as well.

Third, Plaintiffs challenge the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 9, 11, and 13, in which 

Defendants stated that no information is needed, although it is possible that a consular officer 

would determine further information was needed in the future. (Discovery Letter at 6.) It is not 

clear what further information is required; Defendants have stated that no information is needed, 

and thus have sufficiently responded to the interrogatory. If further information is needed in the 

future, Defendants should supplement their responses accordingly.

Finally, Plaintiffs challenge the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 19, 

which state that no information is needed and that an enhanced automated interagency national 

security and law enforcement review is being undertaken. (Discovery Letter at 7.) As with the 

prior interrogatories, it is not clear what further response can be provided at this time.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to compel further responses to these 

specific interrogatories.

B. Request for a Rule 26(f) Case Management Conference

Plaintiffs request a case management conference, pointing to recent events between the 

Case 4:19-cv-05782-KAW Document 50 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

United States and Iran. (Pls.’ Rule 26(f) Mot. at 1.) Plaintiffs also note that Defendants have yet 

to file their motion to dismiss, although they acknowledge that Defendants had stated that they 

intend to file their motion by January 16, 2020. (Id.) On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed their 

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 48.)

At a Rule 26(f) conference, the parties must make their Rule 26 disclosures and devise a 

proposed discovery plan, taking into consideration “the nature and basis of their claims and 

defenses . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). Here, however, the pleadings and scope of the specific 

claims are not settled, as Defendants have filed their motion to dismiss. See Zavala v. KruseWestern, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-239-DAD-SKO, 2019 WL 3219254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2019) 

(denying motion to compel a Rule 26(f) conference because “[u]ntil the motion to dismiss is 

resolved, the actual claims and defenses at issue will be unclear”); Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. 

ZTE Corp., Case No. 12cv1226-CAB (MDD), 2013 WL 12072533, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013) 

(finding no good cause to require a Rule 26(f) conference because “[u]ntil the motion to dismiss is 

resolved, the actual claims and defenses will be unclear. It would be inefficient and cause 

unnecessary expense for the parties to engage in discovery on claims that may not survive and 

defenses and counterclaims that may not be asserted”). Thus, the Court finds that a Rule 26(f) 

conference is premature, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a case management conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05782-KAW Document 50 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3