Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04001/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04001-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UELIAN DE ABADIA-PEIXOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 11-04001 RS (KAW)

ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security submitted documents for review in 

camera per the Court’s November 16, 2012 order. (Dkt. No. 110.) The Court has completed most

of its review of Defendants’ in camera submission and issues this initial order. As set forth below, 

the Court seeks further information regarding certain documents, and orders Defendants to 

produce certain other documents. 

I. DISCUSSION

The Court discussed the deliberative process privilege in its November 16, 2012 order and 

incorporates the discussion and analysis of the privilege in the prior order by reference. (Dkt. No. 

110.) 

Per the Court’s November 16, 2012 order, the Government submitted 17 bates stamped

documents that it had withheld from Plaintiffs on the basis of deliberative process privilege.1 

After reviewing the documents, the Court finds that the deliberative process privilege did not 

apply with respect to at least 10 documents because they were not both deliberative and 

predecisional. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce the documents identified below to 

Plaintiffs, without redaction, unless otherwise noted.

///

 

1

In response to the Court’s November 16, 2012 Order, the Government voluntarily produced 

Document Nos. DHS018311-018312, so those documents will not be addressed.

Case 3:11-cv-04001-RS Document 116 Filed 01/07/13 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

A. Documents to be Produced

1. Documents summarizing ICE’s Use of Restraints policy

Documents Nos. 2305, 16919, 18296, 18306, and 18307 all summarize ICE’s Use of 

Restraints policy, which was publicly released, so these documents are neither predecisional nor 

deliberative and must be produced. In fact, the January 29, 2009 email (No. 18307) clearly states 

that a version of the summary was provided when another non-governmental organization (NGO) 

requested it, which would, in itself, destroy privilege.

2. Documents pertaining to the restraints policy for asylum seekers

Document No. 18314 is a “portion of message containing internal deliberations regarding 

the response to UNHCR.” This document is not privileged with the exception of the first 

sentence, which begins with “We are” and ends with “today.” This document shall be produced,

and the Government has the discretion to do so with that first sentence redacted.

While the Court will not order Document No. 18318, described as “Portion of message 

containing internal deliberations regarding the response to UNHCR,” the Court orders the 

Government to produce the referenced letter that it sent to UNHCR, because that document is not 

privileged. In addition, if it has not yet done so, the Government is ordered to produce copies of 

all final restraint policies for asylum seekers, including those that have been superseded, from 

August 1, 2011 to present.

3. Other Documents

Document No. 18347 was purportedly withheld on the basis of deliberative process and

attorney work product. The rationale the Government provides in its privilege log is that it is an 

“[e]mail message discussion conducted at the request of counsel.” The email is between Jason 

McClay and David Jennings, and was forwarded to “ICE ERO Supervisory Detention and 

Deportation Officers, Yakov Grinberg, Claudio McCoy, Johnny Bailey.” None of these actors are 

attorneys, so the claimed work product privilege does not apply. Further, the contents are factual 

in nature, as they concern the implementation of ICE’s Restraints policy as it relates to one of the 

named plaintiffs in restraints. So even if this were subject to the qualified deliberative process

Case 3:11-cv-04001-RS Document 116 Filed 01/07/13 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

privilege—which it is not— this privilege could be overcome by Plaintiffs’ substantial need for 

the document. The Government is therefore ordered to produce this document without redaction.

Document No. 18352 is an email that contains the name and alien number of a detainee. 

This document was withheld on the basis of privacy. The entire contents are not privileged and 

the Government is ordered to produce this email with the name and alien number redacted to 

protect the detainee’s privacy.

B. More information required by the Government

The Government is ordered to produce additional information in camera to the Court to 

assist it in making a privilege determination regarding Document Nos. 18320 and 18345. 

Specifically, a copy of the final version of the August 2011 restraints policy for asylum seekers, 

including the date and time the policy was finalized.

C. Privileged Documents

After a review of all documents in camera, the Court finds that Document Nos. 18316, 

18317, 18318, 18350, 18351, and 18353 are protected by the deliberative process privilege and 

are not subject to disclosure. Document No. 18348 is protected by attorney-client privilege.

II. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the Court finds that certain documents over which the Government has

asserted deliberative process privilege are not deliberative and predecisional, and thus, not 

entitled to protection. Accordingly, the Government shall produce the documents identified above 

by January 18, 2013. For those documents about which the Court seeks additional information, 

the Government shall provide its response in camera by January 14, 2013. The Court will then 

issue a further order concerning the remainder of the in camera production.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: January 7, 2013 ___________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-04001-RS Document 116 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3