Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08071/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-08071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-08071-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

1

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GISELLE KAYVAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-08071-EJD 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 17

On December 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants, alleging that 

Defendants were improperly withholding adjudications of case-by-case waivers under Presidential 

Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry 

into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats (“PP 9645”). On December 26, 

2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 7), which pursuant to 

stipulation, is scheduled to be heard on February 13, 2020 (Dkt. No. 15). 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for expedited discovery.

Plaintiffs seek to propound four interrogatories to determine what is “holding up” Plaintiffs’ 

waiver adjudications. Mot. 12. The four interrogatories ask for the same information for each 

waiver applicant. For example, Interrogatory No. 1 asks: 

State what information is still needed to determine that the entry of 

FATEMEH HASHEMIAN (visa case number: ABD2016555003) 

would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the 

United States. If Defendants are awaiting information from U.S. 

government agencies, state when the request(s) for that information to 

U.S. government agencies was made, how and by whom the request(s) 

was made, and why U.S. government agencies have not provided the 

information. Finally, state whether Defendants have used the enhanced 

automated screening and vetting process implemented in July 2019 for 

Case 5:19-cv-08071-EJD Document 23 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-08071-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

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

this PP 9645 waiver adjudication.

Dkt. No. 17-2.1 Plaintiffs request an order requiring Defendants to respond to the interrogatories 

seven days prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may not seek 

discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . 

when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts 

within the Ninth Circuit generally apply a “good cause” standard in considering motions to 

expedite discovery. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 

2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 

administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id. The following 

factors are commonly considered by courts to determine whether there is good cause for 

expedited discovery: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the 

discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the 

defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery 

process the request was made.” Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. 

Cal. 2009); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 53233, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011).

As an initial matter, the ex parte motion is procedurally improper because it was not filed 

in accordance with Civil Local Rules 7-1 and 7-10. On the merits, Plaintiffs have not met their 

burden of establishing good cause. First, although there is a preliminary injunction motion 

pending, this factor alone does not justify expedited discovery. Am. LegalNet, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 

1066 (“expedited discovery is not automatically granted merely because a party seeks a 

1 The enhanced automated screening and vetting process was implemented in July of 2019 and is 

designed “to determine whether any additional review is required related to determine whether the 

applicant has satisfied the national security and public safety waiver criterion.” Compl. ¶ 75 

(internal quotation). The enhanced automated system is expected to “significantly increase the 

speed and efficiency of the vetting process for both current and future waiver cases while 

maintaining all security standards.” Id. (internal quotation). It is limited, however, to “current and 

future waiver cases.” Id.

Case 5:19-cv-08071-EJD Document 23 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-08071-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

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

preliminary injunction”). Second, although the breadth of the discovery may appear narrow, it 

presents a significant burden to Defendants. Defendants represent that in order to respond to the 

interrogatories, they would have to coordinate and compile for each waiver applicant the review 

status of all the various federal agencies that may be involved in the national security and law 

enforcement background review. Defs.’ Opp’n 20. Defendants also represent that some of this 

information is privileged and/or classified, and much of it would be in the possession of 

government agencies who are not defendants in this case. Id. Third, Plaintiffs assert that the 

discovery sought is relevant to determine whether Defendants are “unreasonably” delaying review 

of their waiver applications, citing to two similar cases in which each court granted expedited 

discovery: Poozesh v. Pompeo, No. 19-1466 LJO (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019), sub nom. Motaghedi 

v. Pompeo, No. 19-1466 LJO; and Najafi v. Pompeo, No. 19-5782 KAW, 2019 WL 5423467 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019). The authorized discovery in those cases, however, ultimately proved to 

have only minimal relevance, if any, to the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions. In both 

Motaghedi and Najafi, the courts’ analysis of the unreasonable delay issue was governed by the 

factors set forth in Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC (“TRAC factors”), 

which are:

(1) The time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a 

“rule of reason;” (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other 

indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in 

the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this 

rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of 

economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and 

welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of 

expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or 

competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the 

nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court 

need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in 

order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed.

750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted). The Motaghedi and Najafi courts 

analyzed the TRAC factors without relying on any of the authorized expedited discovery and 

denied the plaintiffs’ respective motions for preliminary injunction. Motaghedi, 2020 WL 

207155, at *4 (noting that plaintiffs ‘“did not rely on any of those discovery responses to modify 

Case 5:19-cv-08071-EJD Document 23 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-08071-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

4

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

or amend the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was the purported basis for 

seeking expedited discovery’”); Najafi, 2019 WL 6612222, at *8. Thus, there is no good cause for 

the requested expedited discovery in the instant case.

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for expedited discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-08071-EJD Document 23 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 4