Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01986/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01986-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

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 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALTON JONES, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

U.S. BORDER PATROL 

AGENT GERARDO 

HERNANDEZ et al., 

 Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 Case No.: 16-CV-1986-W(WVG) 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

(PLAINTIFF’S RFP (SET 4) NOS. 41-

49 AND RFI NO. 1)

 This discovery dispute involves Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents 

(Set 4) (“RFPs”) Nos. 41 through 49 and his Request for Inspection (“RFI”) No. 1. The 

parties have provided the Court detailed synopses of their positions,1

 which the Court 

finds are sufficient for resolution without argument or additional briefing. See S.D. Cal. 

L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). Defendants’ objections to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44 through 49 are 

OVERRULED as moot. With respect to RFP No. 43 and RFI No. 1, Defendants’ lackof-proportionality objections are SUSTAINED. 

 

1

 Attached hereto as Attachment A. 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 21
 2 

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

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

 The Court need not reach whether the subject matter of RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44 

through 49 are discoverable because, as a threshold matter, any disputes over these 

RFPs are moot. In his declaration, Rodney S. Scott—the Chief Patrol Agent in charge 

of the U.S. Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector—declares under penalty of perjury that 

Border Patrol personnel have conducted a search and have not uncovered any 

documents responsive to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 43 through 49. Agent Scott also 

declares that Defendants will supplement their responses to produce any responsive 

documents that are discovered in the future. Given Agent Scott’s representations, there 

simply is no dispute before the Court—Defendants have conducted a search, have found 

nothing, and have sufficiently responded to the RFPs in question. As a result, the 

objections are moot despite Plaintiff’s continued efforts to obtain documents that—

accordingly to Agent Scott—do not exist to the best of his knowledge. It according 

makes no sense to entertain disputes over, issue a protective order for, or compel the 

production of discovery that does not exist. As a result, Defendants’ objections are 

OVERRULED as moot, and they need not further respond to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44 

through 49 unless responsive documents are discovered in the future. 

 With respect to RFP No. 43, the Court need not reach Defendants’ invocation of 

the law enforcement privilege because, as a threshold matter, this RFP is not 

proportional to the needs of the case given the uncomplicated nature of the case, the 

discovery Defendants have produced to date, and Agent Scott’s representations about 

the sensitive nature of the responsive document. Defendants’ lack-of-proportionality 

objection to RFP No. 43 is SUSTAINED. 

 Finally, through RFI No. 1, Plaintiff seeks to enter, view, and inspect the “control 

center” where agents operate RVSS cameras. As with RFP No. 43, RFI No. 1 is not 

proportional to the needs of the case and is even less so given what Plaintiff seeks to 

discover from the inspection, the intrusive nature of the request, and the much greater 

prospect that irrelevant yet highly sensitive information will be gleaned from the 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 21
 3 

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

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

inspection. This request goes beyond production of a cold document but seeks to 

physically enter the nerve center where agents run a highly-sensitive camera system that 

watches over the United States-Mexico border. This case does not justify such an 

intrusive, sensitive inspection. Defendants’ lack-of-proportionality objection to RFI 

No. 1 is SUSTAINED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 21
 4 

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

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

ATTACHMENT A 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 21
RE: 16cv1986 Jones case

Hayes, Hunter to: Bettwy, Samuel (USACAS), 12/28/2017 11:59 AM

Cc: "Wallace, Dave (USACAS)", "XT McKinney, Zoe"

Below is Plaintiff’s synopsis of the pending dispute regarding camera evidence.  As the Court is likely 

aware, the government produced a recording from a Border Patrol RVSS camera system that captured 

some, but not all, of the incident in this case.  Much of the video is grainy and low resolution, making it 

difficult to determine what occurred, and most of the critical events in this case occur in a known blind 

spot of the RVSS system.  Plaintiff has sought discovery about the camera system in order to understand 

the video and radio evidence produced in this case and test the government’s factual assertions that the 

camera system was used “properly.”  Dkt. 68‐3 (Decls. of Mike Apple and Jose Cruz I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss 

or for Summ. J.). 

Apple Deposition Instructions Not to Answer

At the deposition of Mike Apple on December 20, the government’s counsel instructed Mr. Apple not to 

answer basic questions regarding the RVSS system.  The Court will recall that, in its written submission 

and at the hearing regarding the ongoing dispute over Plaintiff’s right to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition of the party that sued him, the government stated that Plaintiff should not be entitled to a 

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the cameras in part because “Mike Apple will be able to testify about 

the RVSS camera or cameras that could see the area of the incident . . . .”  Gov’t Brief at 2, Nov. 16, 2017.  

The government has now entirely shifted its position, and now claims that any  information regarding the 

capabilities of the RVSS system, and even the existence of documents about the system, is absolutely 

privileged.  At the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel (some of whom had travelled out of town for the 

deposition) were prevented from asking entire lines of questioning related to the camera’s basic 

functions.  Mr. Apple was instructed not to answer questions seeking (a) “who manufactures the 

camera” (Apple Depo. Tr. 32:10‐15); (b) “[w]hat documents” show “how to operate the RVSS” (id. 

34:11‐23); (c) “what actions or practices constitute proper use of the equipment” (id. 35:3‐10); and (d) 

whether there are “written policies regarding the operation of the cameras” (id. 37:16‐25).  The 

government is seeking to block discovery that may confirm or deny its own factual claims regarding 

proper use of the system and the existence of documents regarding the system. (As to the identity of the 

manufacturer, Plaintiff’s counsel later learned the government has not even kept that confidential, so it 

cannot be subject to any privilege.  Kelly v. City of San Jose , 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987).)

After these objections, the deposition was paused while counsel met and conferred about the scope of 

the privilege the government claims.  Plaintiff’s counsel provided authorities demonstrating that the 

government’s privilege claims were wrong, because the government has not made a threshold showing 

that the specific information requested will unduly hinder Border Patrol operations if provided subject to 

a protective order.  Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide the government additional time to consider 

these authorities and speak with the agency regarding the appropriate scope of the law enforcement 

investigatory privilege, and government counsel agreed that Mr. Apple would be available for a 

continued deposition.  At a further meet and confer following another deposition on December 22, the 

government simply repeated the same overbroad objection it had already made.  The government also 

made both relevance and proportionality objections that are both wrong (because the camera evidence 

is critical in this case) and improper (because these are not bases for an instruction not to answer). 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 21
16cv1986 Jones case: USA request for protective order re P ’s requests for 

sensitive law enforcement information

Bettwy, Samuel (USACAS) to: rts.gov 12/28/2017 12:00 PM

Cc: "Wallace, Dave (USACAS)", "Hayes, Hunter" , "XT McKinney, 

Zoe"

TO: The Honorable William V. Gallo

THRU: 

DATE: December 28, 2017 

RE: Jones v. Hernandez , No. 16cv1986 W (WVG) 

United States’ request for protective order re Plaintiff’s requests for sensitive law enforcement information

Summary . The United States seeks protection from Plaintiff’s persistent attempts, over the last three 

months, to obtain irrelevant and disproportional information about sensitive law enforcement techniques, 

namely information about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance operations at 

the international border, including but not limited to video surveillance (RVSS) and radio communications 

systems. We have produced to Plaintiff’s counsel the declaration of San Diego Sector Chief Border Patrol 

Agent Rodney Scott in which he states that disclosure of the information sought would compromise 

Border Patrol’s mission to defend against trafficking and smuggling of aliens, drugs, other contraband, 

and terrorist weapons (see attached Scott Declaration, paras. 11.a. & 11.b.). 

 Lack of relevance . Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation to us of the relevance of the information sought 

is incomprehensible, so we are unable to re-state it here. Given their statement in the pending dispute 

over their Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, it seems that they’re hoping to build some far-fetched cover-up 

conspiracy theory, but after extensive discovery, it is clear that there was nothing to cover up. The United 

States has already disclosed ample information that is sensitive, because it is relevant to claims and 

defenses in this case, including:

 name and approximate location of the sensor near the all-weather road that Jones 

activated

 names and locations of operational areas where the incident occurred

 name, title and duty assignment of all agents on duty at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol 

station on the relevant days [Response to Interrogatory No. 1]

 location of cameras that could potentially see the general area at issue (for which, we have 

disclosed to Plaintiff, there are no recordings)

 location of the camera that was pointed at and recording the incident of Jones’ running on 

the all-weather road

 videotape that was retained, which reveals blind spots in the RVSS camera

 procedure used to record, download and burn to DVD the RVSS videotape

 all radio calls that were recorded during the time of the incident

 identities of agents who can be heard on the radio

 radio procedures that were used in the calls relevant to this incident such as what was 

being done to overcome poor radio signal (e.g., switching to “direct” to reach a high point)

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 21
 Disproportional . Preserving/asserting the law enforcement privilege has required that Border 

Patrol personnel expend, to date, over 150 hours to research and review responsive documents, and that 

process remains ongoing. Border Patrol personnel search for and retrieve responsive documents and 

then Chief Scott reviews them to determine whether their disclosure would compromise the Border 

Patrol’s mission. The process remains ongoing because Plaintiff’s counsel are seeking material that goes 

beyond what is in Border Patrol’s possession. 

 The law enforcement privilege . If this Court were to reach consideration of the law enforcement 

privilege, it would weigh and compare the interests of the Department of Homeland Security (which 

interests coincide with the security interests of the entire nation) in protecting its border surveillance 

methods against the interests of Plaintiff to support what appears to be an outlandish conspiracy theory 

for which no basis has been developed through discovery. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have recognized the 

privilege, and courts nationwide consistently refuse to compel disclosure. See Shah v. Department of 

Justice , No. 14-cv-624, 2015 WL 427916, at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015) (“courts have recognized that the 

[law enforcement investigatory] privilege may be applied in order to ensure the efficacy of investigative 

techniques in future cases.”) (APA case); Benhoff v. DOJ , No. 16cv1095 GPC (JLB), 2017 WL 840879, 

at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 03, 2017) (APA case); Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms , No. 13-CV-5081-RMP, 

2015 WL 11112414, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2015) (motion to compel). See also Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico v. United States , 490 F.3d 50, 62 (1st Cir. 2007) (APA-type action); Azmy v. U.S. 

Department of Defense , 562 F. Supp. 2d 590, 601-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (FOIA case), Tri-State Hosp. 

Supply Corp. v. United States , 2005 WL 3447890 at *9 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (motion to compel); Tuite v. 

Henry , 181 F.R.D. 175, 180 (D.D.C. 1998) (motion to compel). 

 Procedural history . The United States first asserted the law enforcement privilege at the 

September 28, 2017 deposition of Border Patrol Agent McFarlin. We instructed Agent McFarlin not to 

answer, and we proposed to Plaintiff’s counsel to call Your Honor at that time to reach an early resolution, 

but Plaintiff’s counsel declined . [McFarlin Tr. 46-49 (attached to our Nov. 16, 2017 position statement 

(.pdf at 101)).]

 About two weeks later, on October 10, 2017, the issue arose again at the deposition of Agent 

Kulakowski. We once again instructed Agent Kulakowski not to answer, and we again proposed to call 

Your Honor to resolve the issue: Plaintiff’s counsel at first agreed and then decided to withdraw the 

question . [Kulakowski Tr. 205-07 (attached to our Nov. 16, 2017 position statement (.pdf at 319-20)).]

 On October 23, 2017, the issue arose again with respect to Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, which 

dispute is pending before Your Honor.

 On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff served RFP #4, seeking extensive information about the 

capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance systems. In our November 16, 2017 position 

statement (at 5 n.3), we attached RFP #4 to flag the issue. On December 15, 2017, we responded to 

Plaintiff’s RFP #4, invoking the privilege and presenting Chief Scott’s declaration, which will likely be 

supplemented, but which contains a general explanation that information about the capabilities and 

vulnerabilities of the RVSS and radio communication systems would compromise the law enforcement 

mission of the Border Patrol to surveil and protect our border (see attached Scott Declaration, paras. 

11.a. & 11.b.). 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 21
 On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel served us with a request to inspect Border Patrol’s 

operations center where video surveillance is conducted (see attached Request to Inspect). We have 

informed Plaintiff’s counsel that we will be objecting to their request. 

 On December 20, 2017, at the deposition of Mike Apple, Plaintiff’s counsel continued to seek 

sensitive law enforcement information, so we agreed that, given all of the different, unresolved 

manifestations of this dispute, his deposition would remain open until its resolution. [Apple Tr. 32, 34, 37, 

69.]

 On December 22, 2017 (at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s deposition of Agent Herrera), counsel met 

and conferred and then called Your Honor’s chambers and left a voicemail message. 

 Conclusion . The United States is seeking protection from all further requests for information about 

the capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance operations at the international border, 

including but not limited to video surveillance and radio communications systems. We contend that 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, their RFP #4, their request to inspect the control center where 

video surveillance occurs, and their questions at multiple depositions, all seek sensitive law enforcement 

information about investigative techniques that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case. Their 

requests are also disproportional to the needs of this case, especially considering the time that has been 

spent and has yet to be spent on this process. The United States also asserts the law enforcement 

privilege, because disclosure of the information sought would compromise the Border Patrol’s mission to 

detect and prevent the illegal trafficking of people and contraband and the entry of terrorists and terrorist 

weapons into the United States. 

Respectfully, 

 

s/ David B. Wallace 

David. B. Wallace, AUSA

s/ Samuel W. Bettwy

Samuel W. Bettwy, AUSA

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

880 Front St., Rm. 6293 

San Diego, CA 92101-8893 

 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of 21
Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of 21
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

37292525.1 16-cv-1986-W (WVG)

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT 

AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Mitra Ebadolahi (SBN 275157) 

mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org 

David Loy (SBN 229235) 

davidloy@aclusandiego.org 

Zoë McKinney (SBN 312877) 

zmckinney@aclusandiego.org 

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN 

DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES 

P.O. Box 87131 

San Diego, CA 92138-7131 

Telephone: (619) 232-2121 

Facsimile: (619) 232-0036 

Luis Li (SBN 156081) 

luis.li@mto.com 

Tamerlin J. Godley (SBN 194507) 

tamerlin.godley@mto.com 

Lauren C. Barnett (SBN 304301) 

lauren.barnett@mto.com 

C. Hunter Hayes (SBN 295085) 

hunter.hayes@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

350 South Grand Avenue 

Fiftieth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 

ALTON JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALTON JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS 

GERARDO HERNANDEZ, JODAN 

JOHNSON, DAVID FAATOALIA, 

JOSEPH BOWEN, and JOHN 

KULAKOWSKI, each sued in their 

individual capacities; UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; and 

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-1986-W (WVG) 

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT ALTON JONES’S 

REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 

FROM DEFENDANT AND 

COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA 

Judge: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Counter-Claimant, 

vs. 

ALTON JONES, 

Counter-Defendant.

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of 21
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

37292525.1 -1- 16-cv-1986-W (WVG)

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT 

AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF & COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALTON 

JONES 

RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT & COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Plaintiff Alton Jones hereby 

requests that Defendant and Counter-Claimant United States of America (“USA”) 

permit Plaintiff to inspect the places and tangible things listed below within thirty 

(30) days of service of these Requests. 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

1. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein Rules 

26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. This Request seeks 

responses and DOCUMENTS and things to the full extent permitted by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. 

2. If YOU object to an inspection on grounds of privilege, specify with 

particularity the nature of the claimed privilege so as to enable the claim of privilege 

to be evaluated and, if necessary, adjudicated. 

3. The singular form of a word should be interpreted as plural wherever 

necessary to bring within the scope of the request any information that might 

otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. 

4. The present tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular 

includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. “All” means “any and all”; 

“any” means “any and all.” “Including” means “including but not limited to.” “And” 

and “or” encompasses both “and” and “or.” Words in the masculine, feminine, or 

neutral form shall include each of the other genders. 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of 21
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

37292525.1 -2- 16-cv-1986-W (WVG)

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT 

AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEFINITIONS 

1. “CAMERA 2” is a camera located near Border Field State Park, 

pointing eastward, from which video footage was produced in this case.

REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 

Request for Inspection No. 1: 

The control center from which CAMERA 2 is operated, and from which 

CAMERA 2 footage may be viewed. This control center is located, on information 

and belief, in the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station. 

DATED: December 13, 2017 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & 

IMPERIAL COUNTIES 

 MITRA EBADOLAHI 

DAVID LOY 

ZOE MCKINNEY 

 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

 LUIS LI 

TAMERLIN J. GODLEY 

LAUREN C. BARNETT 

C. HUNTER HAYES 

By: /s/ C. Hunter Hayes 

 C. HUNTER HAYES 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff ALTON JONES 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of 21
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

 16-cv-1986-W (WVG)

PROOF OF SERVICE 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this 

action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My 

business address is 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

On December 13, 2017, I served true copies of the following document(s) 

described as: 

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALTON JONES’S REQUESTS 

FOR INSPECTION FROM DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

on the interested parties in this action as follows: 

David B. Wallace 

Dave.Wallace@usdoj.gov 

Samuel William Bettwy 

samuel.bettwy@usdoj.gov 

United States Attorney's Office 

880 Front Street 

Room 6293 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 546-7669 

Fax: (619) 546-7751 

Attorneys for Defendants/Counter-Claimant

BY E-MAIL: I served the document electronically by e-mailing the 

document to the individuals on the attached service list. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office 

of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on December 13, 2017, at San Francisco, California. 

 /s/ Crystal Wu 

Crystal Wu 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 78 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of 21