UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

L.R. 56.1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, by Morris Pasqual, Acing United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 

submits the following statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue pursuant to 

Local Rule 56.1 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This is an action brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the 

court has subject matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 552 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 41 (Answer) 

¶¶ 1, 4.

2. Venue is proper in this district because plaintiff Jacqueline Stevens resides in this 

district. Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 5.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Jacqueline Stevens is a professor at Northwestern University. Dkt. 41

(Answer) ¶ 6.

JACQUELINE STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2725

Judge Rowland

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 1 of 138 PageID #:371
2

4. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is a component agency 

of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶¶ 12-13.

FOIA Requests

5. When ICE receives a proper FOIA request, ICE’s FOIA office identifies which 

program offices are reasonably likely to possess responsive records and initiates searches within 

those offices. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 37-39. This determination requires a familiarity with the 

holdings of ICE’s record systems, applicable record disposition schedules, and the substantive and 

functional mandates of ICE’s program offices. Id.

6. Each program office has a FOIA point-of-contact person who, based on their 

experience and knowledge of the program office’s practices and activities, forwards the request to 

the individual employees or component offices that they believe are reasonably likely to have 

responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 40-41. 

7. The individuals in each office are directed to search the file systems that in their 

judgment are reasonably likely to contain responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 42. The 

offices then provide any potentially responsive records to ICE’s FOIA office, which reviews the 

records for responsiveness. Id.

8. ICE’s individual employees and offices maintain records in different ways, and the 

determination of what locations to search and how to conduct those searches is necessarily based 

on the way each employee and office maintains files. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 43.

August 6, 2018 Request

9. Stevens submitted a FOIA request to ICE on August 6, 2018, seeking:

1) A list of all ICE Enforcement and Removal Field and Subfield 

offices by control city, including the complete phone numbers and 

addresses of these offices in the United States and abroad and 

information on holding cells in these locations, as well as the

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 2 of 138 PageID #:372
3

number of unique individuals in custody at that location between 

Monday, July 30 and August 5, 2018. Please include as well all 

locations at which individuals were held for more than 24 hours and 

the dates on which that occurred between January 1, 2016 and the 

day of the release of information.

2) Please include the Excel spreadsheet and screen shots of the data 

base interface used to produce the search results.

3) A list of addresses for locations listed as “unavailable” in the 

release to the NIJC of 11/6/2017 

(https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-files/nocontent-type/2018-06/ICE_Facility_List_11-06-2017-web.xlsx).

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 17.

10. ICE’s FOIA office emailed Stevens on August 17, 2018, stating:

In conducting a search for responsive records, the ICE FOIA office 

has determined that further clarification is needed regarding your 

request. Please describe what you mean by “information on holding 

cells” and “unique individuals in custody at that location.” Please 

provide the ICE FOIA office with a response as soon as possible to 

avoid any further delay in the processing of your request. If a 

response is not received within 30 days, your request will be 

administratively closed.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 18; Pineiro Decl. ¶ 7 n.4 (clarifying date).

11. Stevens responded on September 5, 2018, stating:

1) “Holding cells” is a term of art used by ICE and federal courts to 

refer to areas where people arrested by ICE or other components of 

DHS are held. Hence the name “holding cells,” e.g., here is a 

reference in an ICE document to “holding cells.”

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/prea_audit/losAngelesStagingFacil

ityMar14_15_2017.pdf (Just use control/f.) You ca find dozens 

more references on your own website, if you go to ice.gov and type 

“holding cells” into the search box. Please see this reference as well 

from an ICE spokesperson.

https://www.kansas.com/news/business/bizcolumnsblogs/carrierengers/article1114192.html.

2) Per the American Heritage Dictionary, A “unique individual” is 

one distinguishable human being. ICE maintains data on this, and I 

included a link to this data.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 3 of 138 PageID #:373
4

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 20.

12. Stevens emailed ICE again on September 10, 2018, stating:

Can you please advise as to the estimated date of completion, insofar 

as the agency has gone beyond the time allowed by statute? I am 

not sure about the nature of this delay. The information I am seeking 

is any description of the facility holding people, i.e., the square feet, 

availability of a toilet, security, access to visitors. And I want to 

know how many people are held in these facilities in a particular 

time frame, per my request.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 21.

13. Because the request explicitly related to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal 

Operations office, ICE determined that that office was the office reasonably likely to have 

responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 52-53.

14. The Enforcement and Removal Operations office’s Information Disclosure Unit 

(the unit that manages ERO-related FOIA requests) tasked several sub-offices to search for 

records, including Custody Management (which oversees ICE detention operations), Field 

Operations (which coordinates ERO’s national field offices), and the Law Enforcement Systems 

and Analysis Statistical Tracking Unit (which provides official statistics for ERO operations). Ex. 

A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 54.

15. The Custody Management office and the Field Operations office both responded 

that they did not maintain the requested information. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 54. But the statistical 

tracking unit provided a spreadsheet showing initial “book-ins” for detention facilities during the 

requested time period, which ICE produced in March 2019 without redactions. Id.

16. Stevens administratively appealed, contending that the spreadsheet omitted the full 

addresses, phone numbers, and other information, and in June 2019 ICE remanded the appeal to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 4 of 138 PageID #:374
5

its FOIA office to search for a list of field offices. Dkt. 7 (Answer) ¶¶ 24-26; Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) 

¶¶ 8, 55.

17. An Enforcement and Removal Operations mission support specialist, based on his 

knowledge of the office’s mission, subsequently searched the office’s intranet using the search 

terms “phone lists” and “field offices” and located responsive documentation. Ex. A (Pineiro 

Decl.) ¶ 56. 

18. ICE released that documentation—consisting of an 11-page spreadsheet—on June 

26, 2019. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 9, 56.

August 23, 2018 Request

19. Stevens submitted a FOIA request to ICE on August 23, 2018, seeking:

A. The most recent Jail Services Cost Statement (JSCS) for the 

following facilities ICE uses to hold people under immigration laws:

1) the Berks County Residential Center, Berks County, PA;

2) South Texas Family Residential Center, Dilley, TX;

3) Hudson County Jail, Hudson County, NJ;

4) Stewart County, GA, (CoreCivic);

5) Aurora, Colorado (GEO)

6) Tacoma, WA (GEO)

7) Otay Mesa, CA (CoreCivic)

8) Eloy, EZ (CoreCivic)

9) Pinal County Jail, AZ

10) Otero County Processing Center, NM (MTC)

11) Joe Corley Detention Facility, Conroe TX (GEO)

12) Houston, TX (CoreCivic on Export Drive)

13) IAH, Secure Adult Detention Center (MTC) 

 (Livingstone, TX)

14) LaSalle, LA

B. Memorandum from Michael J. Davidson, Chief, CALD, OPLA, 

ICE to William C. Randolph, Director and Head of Contracting 

Activity, OAQ, ICE, Funding Intergovernmental Service 

Agreements (Feb. 7, 2013).

C. All information in any medium including but but (sic) not limited 

to e-mail, text messages, reports, contracts, memoranda, letters, or 

faxes signed by, from, to OR about Charlie Dent, John McCormack, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 5 of 138 PageID #:375
6

Eric Ruth, Matthew Lerch, Judith Kraine, Mark Baldwin, William 

Dennis, Thomas Gajewski, Judith Schwank, Mark Scott in ICE 

components that handle Berks County, PA ICE Intergovernmental 

Service Agreements (IGSAs) and not responsive to previous 

requests. This means any document under ICE control associated 

with detention or removal operations, facility leases, purchases, 

sales, or services rendered in Berks County, PA that references any 

of the individuals listed above is responsive to this request. Please 

make sure to inquire of any ICE component responsible for any 

negotiations with Berks County. The time frame of this request is 

2000 to present. The most likely location of records responsive to 

this request are offices responsible for the Berks County, PA 

operations, contracts, and reviews, including but not limited to 

litigation for that facility. In particular, there should be 

communications in 2006 about ICE –contracted facility firings 

based on allegations of unlawful actions. Components within ICE 

that are alerted about misconduct or possible litigation should be 

searched for responsive records.

D. All grievance logs and grievances for Berks County, PA, Hudson 

County, NJ, and Otero County Processing Center, January 1, 2010 

to present (Names and other Personally Identifying information is 

of course exempt and may be redacted.)

E. All Jail Services Costs Statements for Berks County Family 

Facility and Hudson County, NJ 2001 to present.’

F. Since January 1, 1999, the earliest first 100 pages of documents

associated with the IGSA for:

1. Berks County, PA

2. Hudson County, NJ

For “F” please request documents of the component of ICE 

predecessor INS that would initiate discussions of IGSAs for the 

purposes of holding people under immigration laws.

I am seeking the first information referencing these county 

governments as suitable detention locations by an INS component 

in any medium, including but not limited to emails, letters, 

proposals, memorandums, or reports.

G. All Evaluations associated with contracts for facilities below, 

including technical and performance evaluations by the Contracting 

Officers and ICE Detention Planning and Acquisition Unit and 

ongoing performance and renewals by contract officers EXCEPT 

Inspector reports. The time frame for this request is January 1, 2000 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 6 of 138 PageID #:376
7

or the first year of the facility’s submission of the JCSC through the 

present.

1) the Berks County Residential Center, Berks County, PA;

2) South Texas Family Residential Center, Dilley, TX;

3) Hudson County Jail, Hudson County, NJ;

4) Stewart County, GA, (CoreCivic);

5) Aurora, Colorado (GEO)

6) Tacoma, WA (GEO)

7) Otay Mesa, CA (CoreCivic)

8) Eloy, EZ (CoreCivic)

9) Pinal County Jail, AZ 

10) Otero County Processing Center, NM (MTC)

11) Joe Corley Detention Facility, Conroe TX (GEO)

12) Houston, TX (CoreCivic on Export Drive)

13) IAH, Secure Adult Detention Center (MTC) 

 (Livingstone, TX)

14) LaSalle, LA

H. Evaluations of JCSCs by Contracting Officers and ICE Detention 

Planning and Acquisition Unit for all detention contracts since 

January 1, 2008.

I. Evaluations of the FIRST JCSCs by Contracting Officers and ICE 

Detention Planning and Acquisition Units (or their predecessors) for 

all currently operating ICE/INS detention facilities except as 

covered by (H).

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 52.

20. ICE determined that its Office of Acquisition Management and its Enforcement and 

Removal Operations offices were reasonably likely to have responsive records and tasked those 

offices to search for records in September 2018. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 82.

21. At the Office of Acquisition Management, a senior advisor contract specialist spent 

48 hours searching the office’s Procurement Request Information System Management database—

a procurement database that DHS has used since 2004 for all phases of its procurement cycle 

including acquisition planning through contract closeout—using the detention facility location 

codes for each of the 14 sites identified in the request, which identified all contract numbers for 

those facilities. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 78. The office gathered 11,855 pages of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 7 of 138 PageID #:377
8

potentially responsive contract-related records and gave them to ICE’s FOIA office, which 

processed them and released the responsive records in multiple releases from January 2021 to 

March 2023. Id.

22. The Enforcement and Removal Operations office tasked its Custody Management 

Division and its Detention Planning and Acquisition Unit too search for records, which identified 

responsive Excel spreadsheets, which ICE produced in August 2023. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 84-

85.

23. ICE also tasked its Office of Professional Responsibility to search for records. Ex. 

A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 86. A management and program analyst in that office spent 8 hours searching 

the Joint Integrity Case Management System—a case management system that ICE uses to record 

claims of employee misconduct, manage criminal and administrative investigations, and track 

employee and contractor disciplinary actions—for grievance logs relating to the Otero, Berks 

County, and Hudson County facilities. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 86. The search located an Excel 

spreadsheet with grievance data, which ICE produced in October 2023. Id.

December 2018 Request

24. Stevens submitted a FOIA request to ICE on December 16, 2018, seeking:

All contracts and associated attachments, memorandums of 

understanding, e-mail, and all other items associated with the 

submission, acceptance, and review of the CFG Health Systems, 

LLC, contracts with Hudson County for health care provided to 

people held under immigration laws.

All logs of grievances (oral and written) submitted by people 

detained at the Hudson County facility.

All medical expense reports submitted to ICE, including via Hudson 

County.

All reviews and reports on health care services provided to people 

held under immigration laws at the Hudson County facility, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 8 of 138 PageID #:378
9

including regular reports, ad hoc reports, and those based on specific 

grievances or complaints generated by any source.

All reports of hunger strikes.

All reports of hospitalization outside of the Hudson County facility 

for people held under immigration laws by Hudson County.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 67.

25. ICE tasked its Office of Professional Responsibility, its Office of Acquisition 

Management, and its Enforcement and Removal Operations office to search for records. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 87.

26. In the Office of Professional Responsibility, a section chief performed a computer 

search using the search terms “medical” and “grievance,” a manual search of computer files for 

inspections relating to the Hudson County jail, and an Outlook search using the terms “Hudson,” 

“medical, “grievance,” and “hunger.” Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 88. The search located responsive 

records. Id.

27. Also in the Office of Professional Responsibility, a management and program 

analyst spent six hours searching the Joint Integrity Case Management System—a case 

management system that ICE uses to record claims of employee misconduct, manage criminal and 

administrative investigations, and track employee and contractor disciplinary actions—using the 

terms “case summary,” “ROI synopsis,” “ROI narrative,” “hunger strike,” “medical treatment,” 

and “hospital,” and identified responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 88; see also id. ¶ 86.

28. At the Office of Acquisition Management, an employee familiar with the office’s 

practices and contract activities responded that the office had no contracts with the medical care 

provider CFG Health Systems for the Hudson County jail, and that therefore any search would not 

be reasonably calculated to uncover responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 89.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 9 of 138 PageID #:379
10

29. The Enforcement and Removal Operations office determined that its Newark and 

New York City field offices, as well as the ICE Health Service Corps, should be tasked to search 

because those offices had oversight for ICE detainees housed at the Hudson County facility. Ex. 

A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 90. 

30. In that Newark field office, two supervisory detention and deportation officers, 

based on their supervisory duties and their knowledge of the office’s recordkeeping, spent three 

hours searching the office’s shared drive and Outlook using the search terms “hunger strike,” 

“hospitalization,” “hospital admission,” “Hudson hunger strike,” “SIR Hudson” (referring to 

“significant incident report”), and “Hudson,” and located responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro 

Decl.) ¶ 91. 

31. In the New York field office, an assistant field office director knowledgeable of the 

office’s recordkeeping searched the office’s shared drive and Outlook using the search terms 

“grievance,” “medical expense,” “health care services,” “hunger strikes,” and “hospital,” and 

located responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 91. 

32. Also in the New York field office, a supervisor detention and deportation officer 

searched the office’s database for Hudson County jail records using the search term “grievance” 

and manually checked paper files and located responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 91. 

33. At the ICE Health Service Corps, a commander and field medical coordinator spent 

three hours searching the office’s tracker using the search terms “NYC AOR” (referring to area of 

responsibility) and “Hudson,” conducted a computer search using the terms “Hudson hunger 

strike” and “Hudson hospital report,” and conducted an Outlook search using the terms “Hudson 

AND hunger strike” and “Hudson AND hospital report,” and located responsive records. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 91.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 10 of 138 PageID #:380
11

34. ICE produced responsive records in December 2019, November 2020, and January 

2021. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 91.

January 2019 Request

35. Stevens submitted a FOIA request to ICE in on January 16, 2019, seeking: 

for the following maintained, received, or required to be produced 

by ICE related to health care services at the Kenosha County, WI 

jail for individuals held under immigration laws. The component 

most likely to have responsive records is the ICE Health Service 

Corps, though contract and civil rights monitoring components of 

ICE also are likely locations for such records.

1. All contracts and associated attachments, memorandums of 

understanding, email, and all other items associated with the 

submission; acceptance, and review of detainee health with Kenosha 

County, WI for health care provided to people held under 

immigration laws.

2. All logs of grievances (oral and written) submitted by people 

detained at the Kenosha County facility.

3. All medical expense reports submitted to ICE for the Kenosha 

County facility.

4. All reviews and reports on health care services provided to people 

held under immigration laws at the Kenosha County facility, 

including regular reports, ad hoc reports, and those based on specific 

grievances or complaints generated by any source.

5. All reports of hunger strikes.

6. All reports of hospitalization outside of the Kenosha County 

facility for people held under immigration laws by Hudson County. 

The time frame for this request is January 1, 2015 to the present.

Databases that may have information responsive to this request 

include but are not limited to: CaseTrakker, MedEZ, Dental Xray 

System, Criminal Institution Pharmacy System, Medical Payment 

Authorization Request Web System (MedPAR) and Medical 

Classification Database.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 44.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 11 of 138 PageID #:381
12

36. ICE determined that its Enforcement and Removal Operations office, its Office of 

Acquisition Management, and its Office of Professional Responsibility were reasonably likely to 

have responsive records and tasked those offices to search for records in February 2019. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 74.

37. The Enforcement and Removal Operations office responded that it does not 

maintain medical records for detention centers such as the Kenosha County jail and that it does 

not maintain grievance logs for the Kenosha County jail. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 75-76. 

38. However, a supervisory detention deportation officer in ERO’s Chicago field 

office, who based on his duties was the person reasonably likely to have access to responsive 

records, also searched Outlook using the terms “Kenosha,” “hunger strike,” and “grievance” and 

found no responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 76.

39. In the Office of Acquisition Management, a contracting officer’s representative—

who, due to his duties in overseeing the contract between ICE and Kenosha County, was 

knowledgeable about how to search for responsive records—spent 12 hours conducting a computer 

search, manually reviewing computer folders, and searching Outlook, using the terms “Kenosha,” 

“Kenosha Medical,” “Kenosha Invoices,” “Kenosha 2015,” “Kenosha 2016,” “Kenosha 2017,” 

“Kenosha 2018,” “Kenosha 2019,” “Medical Issues,” “G-514s” (the name of ICE’s purchase 

requisition forms), “Contracts/MODS” (referring to contract modifications), and “Approved 

Invoices.” Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 77. The search returned responsive records. Id.

40. Also in the Office of Acquisition Management, a senior advisor and procurement 

analyst in the office’s detention, compliance and removals unit searched the office’s Procurement 

Request Information System Management database—a procurement database that DHS has used 

since 2014 for all phases of its procurement cycle including acquisition planning through contract 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 12 of 138 PageID #:382
13

closeout—using the search terms “Kenosha” and “Kenosha County.” Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 78. 

The search returned responsive records. Id.

41. In the Office of Professional Responsibility, a management program analysist who 

was reasonably likely to locate responsive records based on his duties in the office searched the 

office’s Inspections and Detention Oversight database using search terms from the FOIA request 

itself. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 79. Meanwhile, a unit chief searched the office’s shared drive using 

the terms “Kenosha medical” and “Kenosha grievance.” Id. Both searches returned responsive 

records. Id.

42. ICE produced the responsive records to Stevens in June 2019, October 2020, 

January 2021, July 2023, and August 2023. Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 46; Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 80.

March 2019 Request

43. Stevens submitted a FOIA request to ICE on March 25, 2019, seeking:

All documents ICE has referencing the Butler County Jail work 

program for detainees, including but not limited to documents with 

the language about porters Chief Dwyer stated he had personally 

read in an IGSA, as well as all other correspondence about the Butler 

County’s use of people held under immigration law to perform work 

in and around the facility. People likely to have or have access to 

responsive documents include but are not limited to Tae Johnson 

and Kevin Landy.

All formal and informal compliance reports and follow-up 

correspondence, including but not limited to email, attachments, 

grievances or complaints, and contract addenda for Butler County, 

in particular associated with the deficiencies noted in the reports.

All data tracking the length of time people are held in the Butler 

County facility; if there is a db with the number of days/alien please 

send me an output from that db with the individually identifying 

information redacted but including the date of arrival and transfer 

from the facility, as well as the status of the case at the time of 

transfer, i.e., VD, removal, termination, transfer to another ICE 

facility. The date for this request is April 11, 2014 through the time 

the documents are submitted from the component to the ICE FOIA 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 13 of 138 PageID #:383
14

office for redaction or the time frame when the documents are 

produced in litigation, whichever is most contemporary to their 

production to me.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 36.

44. ICE subsequently received clarification from Stevens that, of the three Butler 

County jails the FOIA request could be referring to, the jail in question was the jail in Butler 

County, Ohio. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 63.

45. ICE determine that its Enforcement and Removal Operations office was reasonably 

likely to have responsive records and tasked that office to search for records in July 2019. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 63. 

46. A mission support specialist in ERO’s Custody Management office searched 

ERO’s sharepoint site using the detention location code for the Butler County jail. Ex. A (Pineiro 

Decl.) ¶ 64. A consultant in the same office searched ERO’s shared drive using the search term 

“facility list report.” Id. The searches identified potentially responsive records. Id.

47. A statistician at ICE’s Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis Statistical Tracking 

Unit searched the unit’s Enforcement Integrated Database (a repository for records relating to the 

investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of individuals encountered during 

immigration and law enforcement investigations and operations) using the search terms “length of 

stay” and “Butler County Jail” run together. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 65. The search identified 

responsive records relating to intakes and releases from the Butler County jail and length-of-stay 

information for Fiscal Year 2014 onward. Id.

48. After this lawsuit was filed, ICE’s FOIA office also tasked Custody Management’s 

headquarters and the Enforcement and Removal Operations field office in Detroit. Ex. A (Pineiro 

Decl.) ¶ 66. Custody Management headquarters responded that it had no additional records 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 14 of 138 PageID #:384
15

beyond what the mission support specialist and the consultant had previously identified. Id. The 

field office in Detroit, which had oversight for ICE detainees at the Butler County jail, found eight 

responsive email strings relating to work performed by detainees. Id. 

49. ICE’s FOIA office also tasked its Office of Professional Responsibility and its 

Office of Acquisition Management to search for responsive records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 67. 

50. The professional responsibility office’s Office of Detention Oversight’s acting unit 

chief searched their hard drive, the office’s shared drive, and Outlook using the search term “Butler 

County” and found potentially responsive inspection-related reports and communications for the 

Butler County jail for 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 68. The office 

also determined that it did not inspect the Butler County jail in 2014, 2016, or 2017. Id.

51. In the Office of Acquisition Management, a contract specialist and policy analyst 

for the Detroit field office found 15 pages of responsive records including the original service 

agreement between ICE and Butler County as well as a modification to the agreement. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 69. The office also determined that it would not have any records responsive to 

parts 2 or 3 of the request. Id.

52. ICE also determined that its Office of the Chief Information Officer could search 

for archived emails of the two custodians that Stevens had identified in the request (Tae Johnson 

and Kevin Landy). Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 70-71. 

53. The Office of the Chief Information Officer collected all sent, deleted, and received 

emails from the two custodians from 2009 to present (2009 being when the earliest year of saved 

emails) and sent them to ICE’s FOIA office. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 72. The FOIA office searched 

the emails using the following search terms: “Butler County Jail” AND “work program”; “Butler 

County Jail” AND “voluntary work program” or “VWP”; “Butler County Jail” AND “porters”; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 15 of 138 PageID #:385
16

and “Butler County Jail” AND “same rate as prisoners.” Id. The search returned responsive 

records. Id.

54. ICE processed the records described above and produced them to Stevens. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 65-66, 68-69, 72.

November 2019 Request

55. Stevens sent DHS a FOIA request on November 22, 2019, seeking:

1) all communications and related materials created, received, or 

maintained by the Department of Homeland Security to which Rep. 

Lauren Underwood (D-IL) or any member of her staff were a party. 

This includes but is not limited to all email, text messages, notes, 

reports, memorandums, proposed bill texts, and bill evaluations. In 

a floor speech of 9/26/2019 Rep. Underwood stated she received 

information from the “Department of Homeland Security” 

indicating a request for an integrated Electronic Health Records 

system she referenced as “EHR.” She refers to this in her remarks 

on HR 3525 as a “direct ask from medical officers at the Department 

of Homeland Security.”

2) DHS communications and related materials created by or 

received from other components of DHS or the Department of 

Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement about 

the use of Electronic Health Records systems already in place as 

well as the establishment of an EHR for use by offices of CBP.

3) Information on meetings and communications with private 

individuals, including but not limited to lobbyists or company 

officials related to past, current, or potential “enterprise” or other 

information technologies for collecting, coordinating, or 

maintaining health records data for those encountered or detained 

by DHS or any component of DHS. Technical reports, email, text 

messages, or other communications with the private sector tied to 

past, current, or potential contracts tied to EHR systems.

Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶ 28.

56. The Electronic Health Records System is the result of ICE’s having transformed its 

detainee health recordkeeping system by replacing multiple stand-alone legacy systems and paperCase: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 16 of 138 PageID #:386
17

based files with a centralized, web-based electronic health recordkeeping system for the medical 

treatment and care for detainees in ICE custody. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 57. ICE determined that 

its Enforcement and Removal Operations office and its Office of Congressional Relations were 

the offices reasonably likely to have responsive records and tasked those offices to search in March 

2020. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 58.

57. The Enforcement and Removal Operations office tasked ICE’s Health Service 

Corps to search for records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶¶ 57, 59. That office’s IT chief (who was 

ICE’s point-of-contact for the electronic health records integration project) searched his email 

using the search terms “Thomas Wilkinson” (DHS headquarters’ chief medical officer), “DHS 

ehr,” and “ehr integration.” Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 59. Another officer who was involved in the 

electronic health records integration project also searched his email for “Tom Wilkinson.” Id. The 

searches identified responsive records. Id.

58. At the Office of Congressional Relations, two liaison specialists searched their

computers and emails using the search terms “Lauren Underwood (D-IL),” “Underwood,” “Rep. 

Underwood,” and “HR 3525” and found no records. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 61. A legislative 

analyst also conducted a computer and email search using the term “Lauren Underwood (D-IL_” 

and found no records. Id.

59. ICE produced records in October 2020 and January 2021. Dkt. 41 (Answer) ¶¶ 49-

50.

Overall

60. Overall, ICE produced more than 12,000 pages of responsive records in response 

to Stevens’s six FOIA requests. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 92. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 17 of 138 PageID #:387
18

61. ICE has prepared a Vaughn index that describes a sampling of 421 pages jointly 

agreed to by the parties on which ICE redacted information under FOIA Exemptions 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7(C), and 7(E). Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 92; Ex. B (table of productions); Ex. C (Vaughn index).

FOIA Exemption 3

62. Under FOIA Exemption 3, ICE redacted information on a single page of its 

production because the information relates to a medical update on an ICE detainee subject to

statutory protections that prohibit ICE from disclosing information regarding that detainee, and 

disclosing the particular statute that prohibits disclosure would in itself reveal information that is 

protected from disclosure. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 96. 

FOIA Exemption 4

63. Under FOIA Exemption 4, ICE withheld commercial and financial information that 

was submitted to the government by private entities and that is customarily and actually treated by 

those entities as private. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 97.

64. For example, ICE withheld cost information submitted by a contractor called STG 

International, which provides staffing for medical services for ICE detainees at multiple detention 

facilities. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 98. 

65. Similarly, ICE withheld cost information contained in contract documents between 

ICE and Berks County, Pennsylvania, including financial information submitted by private 

contractors to provide detention-related services, including education and medical care to ICE 

detainees. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 98. 

66. ICE also withheld cost-related information submitted by CoreCivic Corporation 

and the GEO Group relating to contracts with ICE or intergovernmental service agreements 

between ICE and cities or counties providing detention-facility space for ICE detaniees. Ex. A 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 18 of 138 PageID #:388
19

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 98. The cost-related information includes discount terms, bed day rates, hourly 

wages for staffing, the fee for transport service miles, not-to-exceed amounts, and other items. Id.

67. ICE also withheld, as proprietary commercial information, schematic drawings 

submitted by CoreCivic for construction additions to detention facilities. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) 

¶ 98.

FOIA Exemption 5

68. Under FOIA Exemption 5, ICE withheld, for example, portions of an email chain

between various ICE executives—including the acting director of ICE, several assistant directors, 

and ICE’s acting principal legal advisor—discussing how to respond to questions regarding 

detention facilities holding ICE detainees. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 100. The redacted information 

includes, for example, comments from the assistant director of ICE’s Office of Detention Policy 

and Planning providing his opinion on whether a statement from the sheriff of Butler County, if 

true, would violate ICE’s detention standards. Id. ¶ 101. 

69. Disclosure of the deliberative communications that ICE withheld would chill ICE’s 

decision-making process because it would discourage the sharing of candid opinions, would inhibit 

the free and frank exchange of information and ideas between ICE personnel, and could cause ICE 

personnel to be less inclined to produce and circulate material for consideration by peers. Ex. A 

(Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 105.

70. As another example of an Exemption 5 withholding, ICE withheld portions of an 

email chain containing legal analysis from ICE’s Acting Principal Legal Advisor Riah Ramlogan 

and subsequent executives’ responses. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 106. The withheld information is 

pre-decisional, deliberative, and attorney-client privileged. Id. The exchanges consist of 

recommendations, analysis, and discussions undertaken to aid ICE’s decision-making, as well as 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 19 of 138 PageID #:389
20

attorney-client information, opinions, and analysis provided by ICE’s acting principal legal 

advisor. Id. ¶¶ 106-07.

FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7

71. Under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), ICE withheld the names, initials, signatures, 

phone numbers, email addresses, and suite numbers of federal law enforcement officers, other 

government employees, and non-public-facing employees of private detention service providers 

and medical-care staffing companies. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 114. 

72. The employees whose information was withheld assist ICE with its law 

enforcement mission, which includes providing housing, education, and healthcare for detainees. 

Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 115. The employees have a privacy interest in not becoming targets of 

harassment by anyone who may begrudge them for their involvement in immigration law 

enforcement and in remaining free from interference in the performance of their duties by anyone 

who opposes ICE’s mission. Id. Disclosure could also result in their being subjected to personal 

requests for law enforcement information or information about ongoing or closed investigations. 

Id. ¶ 116.

73. Having determined that the employees have a privacy interest in not having their 

information released, ICE then balanced their privacy interest against the public’s interest in 

disclosure and determined that releasing the employees’ personal information would not shed 

further light on ICE’s operations or activities. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 117.

74. On top of that, the third-party employees whose information was withheld have 

not provided their consent to the information’s release, as would be required by 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.3(a), 

5.21(d).

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 20 of 138 PageID #:390
21

75. Under FOIA Exemption 7(E), ICE withheld information regarding specific security 

measures for detention officers, including information on hold rooms, armed transportation, and 

management of the keys and locks at detention facilities, the use and storage of firearms and body 

armor, internal ICE accounting information, detention facility schematics (showing the layout, 

ingress and egress locations, and the proximity of guard stations to and security surveillance of 

areas within a detention facility), staffing plans by shift for security operations at detention 

facilities, schedules and routes for busing detainees between facilities, schedules for perimeter 

surveillance, procedures regarding detainee use of certain tools, and the frequency and schedule 

of detainee counts. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 120. 

76. Disclosure of the information ICE withheld under Exemption 7(E) could 

reasonably be expected to reveal where a particular detention facility would be most vulnerable to 

efforts to avoid detection and apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance and how to 

thwart or frustrate security measures to prevent or quell such incidents. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) 

¶ 121. Public awareness of the information would aid anyone seeking to gain unauthorized entry, 

because they would know the facility’s layout and security procedures, which could be exploited 

to access the facility and frustrate the security measures. Id. ¶¶ 121-22.

Segregability

77. ICE conducted a line-by-line review to identify any information exempt from 

disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver of exemption could be applied and determined that 

all information was correctly segregated, with the non-exempt portions released. Ex. A (Pineiro 

Decl.) ¶ 124-25. 

78. ICE did not withhold any non-exempt information on the grounds that it was not 

segregable. Ex. A (Pineiro Decl.) ¶ 125.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 21 of 138 PageID #:391
22

Respectfully submitted,

MORRIS PASQUAL

Acting United States Attorney

By: s/ Alex Hartzler 

ALEX HARTZLER

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-1390

alex.hartzler@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 22 of 138 PageID #:392
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO

DEFENDANT’S RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Exhibit A Declaration of Fernando Pineiro

Exhibit B Table of Productions

Exhibit C Vaughn index

Respectfully submitted,

MORRIS PASQUAL

Acting United States Attorney

By: s/ Alex Hartzler

ALEX HARTZLER 

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-1390

alex.hartzler@usdoj.gov

JACQUELINE STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2725

Judge Rowland

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 23 of 138 PageID #:393
Exhibit A

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 24 of 138 PageID #:394
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DECLARATION OF FERNANDO PINEIRO 

IN SUPPORT OF U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

I, Fernando Pineiro, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am the FOIA Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(“ICE”) Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Office. I have held this position since August 

14, 2022, and I am the ICE official immediately responsible for supervising ICE responses to 

requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C § 552 (“the FOIA”), the 

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (“the Privacy Act”), and other applicable records access statutes 

and regulations. Prior to this position, I was the Deputy FOIA Officer of the ICE FOIA Office 

from December 29, 2013, to August 13, 2022, and prior to that I was the FOIA Officer for three 

years at the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (“CRCL”) at the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”). 

JACQUELINE STEVENS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, 

 Defendants. 

No. 20 C 2725 

Judge Rowland 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 25 of 138 PageID #:395
2 

2. The ICE FOIA Office is responsible for processing and responding to all FOIA, 

5 U.S.C. § 552, and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, requests received at ICE. 

3. As the FOIA Director of the ICE FOIA Office, my official duties and 

responsibilities include the general management, oversight, and supervision of the ICE FOIA 

Office. I manage and supervise a staff of ICE FOIA Paralegal Specialists, who report to me 

regarding the processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests received by ICE. In connection with 

my official duties and responsibilities, I am familiar with ICE’s procedures for responding to 

requests for information pursuant to provisions of the FOIA and the Privacy Act. In that respect, 

I am familiar with ICE’s processing of the six FOIA requests submitted to ICE that are the 

subject of this litigation.0F

1

4. I make this declaration in my official capacity in support of Defendants1F

2

 in the 

above-captioned action. The statements contained in this declaration are based upon my personal 

knowledge, my review of documents kept by ICE in the ordinary course of business, and 

information provided to me by other ICE employees in the course of my official duties. 

5. Additionally, in accordance with Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 

this declaration describes, in a sampling of 421 pages of records jointly agreed to by the 

parties, the portions of records ICE withheld in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and 

1 As discussed herein, FOIA Request No. 1, 2018-ICFO-56530, was submitted on August 6, 2018; FOIA 

Request No. 2, 2020-ICFO-18634, was submitted on November 22, 2019; FOIA Request No. 3, 2019-ICFO33429, was submitted on March 25 2019; Request No. 4, 2019-ICFO-29171, was submitted on January 16, 2019; 

FOIA Request No. 5, 2018-ICFO-59138, was submitted on August 23, 2018, and Request No. 6, 2019-ICFO24680, was submitted on December 16, 2018. 

2

 One of the six FOIA requests was initially directed to DHS but determined to more appropriately be 

directed to ICE, a component of DHS. Hence, the ICE FOIA Office responded to all 6 FOIA requests included in 

this lawsuit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 26 of 138 PageID #:396
3 

the basis for ICE’s withholdings pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). See Exhibit C – Vaughn Index.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS AND THE 

INSTANT LITIGATION 

Request No. 1 – 2018-ICFO-56530 Subfield Office Locations 

6. Plaintiff submitted FOIA Request No. 12F

3

 to ICE on August 6, 2018, seeking the 

following: 

1) A list of all ICE Enforcement and Removal Field and Subfield 

offices by control city, including the complete phone numbers 

and addresses of these offices in the United States and abroad 

and information on holding cells in these locations, as well as 

the number of unique individuals in custody at that location 

between Monday, July 30 and August 5, 2018. Please include 

as well all locations at which individuals were held for more 

than 24 hours and the dates on which that occurred between 

January 1, 2016 and the day of the release of information. 

2) Please include the Excel spreadsheet and screen shots of the 

data base interface used to produce the search results. 

3) A list of addresses for locations listed as “unavailable” in the 

release to the NIJC of 11/6/2017 

(https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/uploadedfiles/no-content-type/2018-06/ICE_Facility_List_11-06-2017-

web.xlsx). 

7. In a letter to Plaintiff dated August 17, 20183F

4

, the ICE FOIA Office 

acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request dated August 6, 2018, assigned it ICE FOIA case 

number 2018-ICFO-56530, and tasked the program office reasonably likely to have responsive 

3 The FOIA Requests are addressed in the order they were presented in the Complaint as opposed to 

chronological order. 

4 Defendants’ answer to the amended complaint erroneously cited a September 5, 2018 acknowledgement 

letter; the letter was dated August 17, 2018.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 27 of 138 PageID #:397
4 

records. On March 15, 2019, ICE provided Plaintiff with a spreadsheet of responsive information 

with no withholdings. 

8. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff appealed the determination, claiming that the 

spreadsheet omitted the full addresses and phone numbers as well as other information requested. 

On May 20, 2019, ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Government 

Information Law Division (GILD) acknowledged receipt of the appeal and assigned it ICE FOIA 

appeal number 2019-ICAP-00377. On June 18, 2019, GILD advised Plaintiff that it was 

remanding the appeal to the ICE FOIA Office for completion of processing, including tasking for 

additional searches and direct response to Plaintiff. 

9. On June 26, 2019, the ICE FOIA Office produced an 11-page spreadsheet of 

responsive information with withholdings under FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) to the 

names, titles, and phone numbers of ICE personnel associated with the ICE field and subfield 

offices. On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff replied that she had to squint to read the spreadsheet and that 

it appeared to be missing some subfield offices, and a responsive field for the number of people 

detained. 

10. ICE considered its response on the appeal remand to be final and no further 

documents were released. 

Request No. 2 – 2020-ICFO-18634 Lauren Underwood and 

 Electronic Health Records 

11. Plaintiff submitted FOIA Request No. 2 to ICE on November 22, 2019, to the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking the following: 

1) All communications and related materials created, received, or 

maintained by the Department of Homeland Security to which Rep. 

Lauren Underwood (D-IL) or any member of her staff were a party. 

This includes but is not limited to all email, text messages, notes, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 28 of 138 PageID #:398
5 

reports, memorandums, proposed bill texts, and bill evaluations. In 

a floor speech of 9/26/2019 Rep. Underwood stated she received 

information from the “Department of Homeland Security” 

indicating a request for an integrated Electronic Health Records 

System she referenced as “EHR.” She refers to this in her remarks 

on HR 3525 as a “direct ask from medical officers at the Department 

of Homeland Security.” 

2) DHS communications and related materials created by or 

received from other components of DHS or the Department of 

Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement about 

the use of Electronic Health Records systems already in place as 

well as the establishment of an EHR for the use by offices of CBP. 

3) Information on meetings and communications with private 

individuals, including but not limited to lobbyists or company 

officials related to past, current, or potential “enterprise” or other 

information technologies for collecting, coordinating, or 

maintaining health records data for those encountered or detained 

by DHS or any component of DHS. Technical reports, email, text 

messages, or other communications with the private sector tied to 

past, current, or potential contracts tied to EHR systems. 

The time frame of this request is January 1, 2017 to the present, by 

which I mean the date a search is initiated by the tasked component. 

12. On December 2, 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA Request, assigned it request tracking number 2020-HQFO00215, and advised Plaintiff that due to the subject matter of the request, it was being transferred 

to FOIA Officers for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for processing under 

the FOIA and direct response to Plaintiff. 

13. On January 22, 2020, the ICE FOIA Office advised Plaintiff that her request was 

assigned ICE FOIA Case No. 2020-ICFO-18634, that the request was too broad in scope and did 

not specifically identify the records or only posed questions to the agency, and asked that 

Plaintiff perfect her request with a reasonable description of the records sought. Subsequently, on 

March 2, 2020, ICE FOIA advised that the appropriate program offices had been tasked with 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 29 of 138 PageID #:399
6 

searches. 

 Request No. 3 – 2019-ICFO-33429 Butler County Jail 

14. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request for the following:

All documents ICE has referencing the Butler County Jail work 

program for detainees, including but not limited to documents with 

the language about porters Chief Dwyer stated he had personally 

read in an IGSA, as well as all other correspondence about the Butler 

County’s use of people held under immigration law to perform work 

in and around the facility. People likely to have or have access to 

responsive documents include but are not limited to Tae Johnson 

and Kevin Landy. 

All formal and informal compliance reports and follow-up 

correspondence, including but not limited to email, attachments, 

grievances or complaints, and contract addenda for Butler County, 

in particular associated with the deficiencies noted in the reports. 

All data tracking the length of time people are held in the Butler 

County facility; if there is a db with the number of days/alien please 

send me an output from that db with the individually identifying 

information redacted but including the date of arrival and transfer 

from the facility, as well as the status of the case at the time of 

transfer, i.e., VD, removal, termination, transfer to another ICE 

facility. The date for this request is April 11, 2014 through the time 

the documents are submitted from the component to the ICE FOIA 

office for redaction or the time frame when the documents are 

produced in litigation, whichever is most contemporary to their 

production to me.

15. On April 8, 2019, ICE acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request, and assigned it 

tracking number 2019-ICFO-33429. ICE asked Plaintiff to clarify to which of the three Butler 

County jails the request was directed, and Plaintiff clarified that it was the Butler County, Ohio 

facility. ICE FOIA tasked certain program offices likely to have responsive records with searches 

and responsive records were provided ICE FOIA for processing and release to Plaintiff. 

Request No. 4 – 2019-ICFO-29171 Kenosha County Jail 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 30 of 138 PageID #:400
7 

16. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff submitted the following FOIA request to ICE: 

for the following maintained, received, or required to be produced 

by ICE related to health care services at the Kenosha County, WI 

jail for individuals held under immigration laws. The component 

most likely to have responsive records is the ICE Health Service 

Corps, though contract and civil rights monitoring components of 

ICE also are likely locations for such records. 

1. All contracts and associated attachments, memorandums of 

understanding, email, and all other items associated with the 

submission; acceptance, and review of detainee health with Kenosha 

County, WI for health care provided to people held under 

immigration laws. 

2. All logs of grievances (oral and written) submitted by people 

detained at the Kenosha County facility. 

3. All medical expense reports submitted to ICE for the Kenosha 

County facility. 

4. All reviews and reports on health care services provided to people 

held under immigration laws at the Kenosha County facility, 

including regular reports, ad hoc reports, and those based on specific 

grievances or complaints generated by any source. 

5. All reports of hunger strikes. 

6. All reports of hospitalization outside of the Kenosha County 

facility for people held under immigration laws by Hudson County. 

The time frame of this request is January 1, 2015 to the present. 

Databases that may have information responsive to this request 

include but are not limited to: CaseTrakker, MedEZ, Dental XRay 

System, Criminal Institution Pharmacy System, Medical Payment 

Authorization Request Web System (MedPAR) and Medical 

Classification Database. 

17. On February 26, 2019, ICE acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request, assigned it 

tracking number 2019-ICFO-29171, and tasked various ICE program offices reasonably likely to 

have responsive documents with the search. On February 27, 2019, in a partial response to ICE 

FOIA from one of the program offices, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), ERO 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 31 of 138 PageID #:401
8 

advised that it does not maintain medical records for detention centers, such as Kenosha County 

Jail, that are not ICE Service Processing Centers, and that such records should be sought from 

the Kenosha County Jail directly. 

18. On June 10, 2019, ICE provided a final response releasing 15 pages of contractrelated responsive records to Plaintiff with partial redactions under FOIA Exemptions (b)(4), 

(b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). 

19. On August 29, 2019, ICE received Plaintiff’s appeal letter dated August 16, 2019, 

regarding ICE’s final response, challenging the adequacy of the search, and assigned it ICE 

FOIA appeal number 2019-ICAP-00567. On September 26, 2019, GILD advised Plaintiff that 

the contract between ICE and Kenosha County was limited to detention and transportation 

services; that to request records pertaining to medical services, Plaintiff should submit a request 

directly to the Kenosha County detention facility, and that, notwithstanding, GILD was 

remanding the appeal to the ICE FOIA Office for completion of processing of other records 

gathered, and including tasking for additional searches and direct response to Plaintiff. 

Additional records were located and subsequently processed and released to Plaintiff on October 

7, 2020 and January 6, 2021. 

Request No. 5 – 2018-ICFO-59138 Jail Services Costs Statements

20. On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a request to ICE for the following 

information: 

A. The most recent Jail Services Cost Statement (JSCS) for the 

following facilities ICE uses to hold people under immigration laws: 

 1) the Berks County Residential Center, Berks County, PA; 

 2) South Texas Family Residential Center, Dilley, TX; 

 3) Hudson County Jail, Hudson County, NJ; 

 4) Stewart County, GA, (CoreCivic); 

 5) Aurora, Colorado (GEO) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 32 of 138 PageID #:402
9 

 6) Tacoma, WA (GEO) 

 7) Otay Mesa, CA (CoreCivic) 

 8) Eloy, EZ (CoreCivic) 

 9) Pinal County Jail, AZ 

 10) Otero County Processing Center, NM (MTC) 

 11) Joe Corley Detention Facility, Conroe TX (GEO) 

 12) Houston, TX (CoreCivic on Export Drive) 

 13) IAH, Secure Adult Detention Center (MTC) 

 (Livingstone, TX) 

 14) LaSalle, LA 

B. Memorandum from Michael J. Davidson, Chief, CALD, OPLA, 

ICE to William C. Randolph, Director and Head of Contracting 

Activity, OAQ, ICE, Funding Intergovernmental Service 

Agreements (Feb. 7, 2013). 

C. All information in any medium including but but (sic) not limited 

to e-mail, text messages, reports, contracts, memoranda, letters, or 

faxes signed by, from, to OR about Charlie Dent, John McCormack, 

Eric Ruth, Matthew Lerch, Judith Kraine, Mark Baldwin, William 

Dennis, Thomas Gajewski, Judith Schwank, Mark Scott in ICE 

components that handle Berks County, PA ICE Intergovernmental 

Service Agreements (IGSAs) and not responsive to previous 

requests. This means any document under ICE control associated 

with detention or removal operations, facility leases, purchases, 

sales, or services rendered in Berks County, PA that references any 

of the individuals listed above is responsive to this request. Please 

make sure to inquire of any ICE component responsible for any 

negotiations with Berks County. The time frame of this request is 

2000 to present. The most likely location of records responsive to 

this request are offices responsible for the Berks County, PA 

operations, contracts, and reviews, including but not limited to 

litigation for that facility. In particular, there should be 

communications in 2006 about ICE –contracted facility firings 

based on allegations of unlawful actions. Components within ICE 

that are alerted about misconduct or possible litigation should be 

searched for responsive records. 

D. All grievance logs and grievances for Berks County, PA, Hudson 

County, NJ, and Otero County Processing Center, January 1, 2010 

to present (Names and other Personally Identifying information is 

of course exempt and may be redacted.) 

E. All Jail Services Costs Statements for Berks County Family 

Facility and Hudson County, NJ 2001 to present.’ 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 33 of 138 PageID #:403
10 

F. Since January 1, 1999, the earliest first 100 pages of documents 

associated with the IGSA for: 

 1. Berks County, PA 

 2. Hudson County, PA 

For “F” please request documents of the component of ICE 

predecessor INS that would initiate discussions of IGSAs for the 

purposes of holding people under immigration laws. 

I am seeking the first information referencing these county 

governments as suitable detention locations by an INS component 

in any medium, including but not limited to emails, letters, 

proposals, memorandums, or reports. 

G. All Evaluations associated with contracts for facilities below, 

including technical and performance evaluations by the Contracting 

Officers and ICE Detention Planning and Acquisition Unit and 

ongoing performance and renewals by contract officers EXCEPT 

Inspector reports. The time frame for this request is January 1, 2000 

or the first year of the facility’s submission of the JCSC through the 

present. 

 1) the Berks County Residential Center, Berks County, PA; 

 2) South Texas Family Residential Center, Dilley, TX; 

 3) Hudson County Jail, Hudson County, NJ; 

 4) Stewart County, GA, (CoreCivic); 

 5) Aurora, Colorado (GEO) 

 6) Tacoma, WA (GEO) 

 7) Otay Mesa, CA (CoreCivic) 

 8) Eloy, EZ (CoreCivic) 

 9) Pinal County Jail, AZ 

 10) Otero County Processing Center, NM (MTC) 

 11) Joe Corley Detention Facility, Conroe TX (GEO) 

 12) Houston, TX (CoreCivic on Export Drive) 

 13) IAH, Secure Adult Detention Center (MTC) 

 (Livingstone, TX) 

 14) LaSalle, LA 

H. Evaluations of JCSCs (sic) by Contracting Officers and ICE 

Detention Planning and Acquisition Unit for all detention contracts 

since January 1, 2008. 

I. Evaluations of the FIRST JCSCs (sic) by Contracting Officers and 

ICE Detention Planning and Acquisition Units (or their 

predecessors) for all currently operating ICE/INS detention facilities 

except as covered by (H). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 34 of 138 PageID #:404
11 

21. On September 5, 2018, ICE acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA request, assigned it 

tracking number 2018-ICFO-59138, and tasked various ICE program offices reasonably likely to 

have responsive documents with a search. On October 25, 2018, ICE provided Plaintiff’s with a 

final response letter indicating that a search of program offices ERO and Office of Acquisition 

Management (OAQ) returned a no records found response. 

22. On November 26, 2018, ICE received Plaintiff’s appeal of the no records found 

determination and assigned it appeal case number 2019-ICAP-00109. On February 19, 2019, 

GILD advised Plaintiff that upon a review of the administrative record, it was determined that 

new searches could be made and therefore it was remanding the request to the ICE FOIA Office 

for further processing and re-tasking to the appropriate program offices. 

23. On about February 7, 20204F

5

, ICE released a 7-page document responsive to part B. of 

Plaintiff’s FOIA request which sought the Memorandum from Michael J. Davidson, Chief, 

CALD, OPLA, ICE to William C. Randolph, Director and Head of Contracting Activity, OAQ, 

ICE, regarding funding Intergovernmental Service Agreements, withheld almost in full pursuant 

to FOIA Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). 

Request No. 6 – 2019-ICFO-24680 Hudson County Jail 

24. On December 16, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request seeking all items 

maintained, received or required to be produced by ICE related to health care services at the 

Hudson County jail for individuals held under immigration laws, including: 

i. All contracts and associated attachments, memorandums of 

understanding, e-mail, and all other items associated with 

5 The release cover letter was erroneously dated February 4, 2019. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 35 of 138 PageID #:405
12 

the submission, acceptance, and review of the CFG Health 

Systems, LLC, contracts with Hudson County for health 

care provided to people held under immigration laws. 

ii. All logs of grievances (oral and written) submitted by 

people detained at the Hudson County facility. 

iii. All medical expense reports submitted to ICE, including 

via Hudson County. 

iv. All reviews and reports on health care services provided to 

people held under immigration laws at the Hudson County 

facility, including regular reports, ad hoc reports, and those 

based on specific grievances or complaints generated by 

any source. 

v. All reports of hunger strikes. 

vi. All reports of hospitalization outside of the Hudson County 

facility for people held under immigration laws by Hudson 

County. 

25. On December 17, 2018, ICE acknowledged Plaintiff’s FOIA request, assigned it 

tracking number 2019-ICFO-24680, and tasked various ICE program offices reasonably likely to 

have responsive records for a search. On September 18, 2019, ICE released 6 pages plus an 

Excel spreadsheet of responsive records to Plaintiff. 

26. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff appealed ICE’s determination claiming that 

responsive documents were omitted. ICE acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s appeal on 

November 4, 2019 and assigned it tracking number 2020-ICAP-00063. On December 4, 2019, 

GILD advised Plaintiff that upon review of the administrative record, it was determined that new 

searches could be made, and the request was remanded to the ICE FOIA Office for re-tasking to 

appropriate program offices and direct response to Plaintiff. Additional records were located and 

subsequently processed and released to Plaintiff on November 24, 2020 and January 6, 2021. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint Allegations 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 36 of 138 PageID #:406
13 

27. Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 5, 2020 (DOC. #1), and her Amended 

Complaint on April 22, 2022 (Doc. #38), alleging the following as to each of the six FOIA 

requests: As to Request 1, 2018-ICFO-56530, regarding ICE ERO subfield office locations, 

Request 4, 2019-ICFO-29171, regarding Kenosha County Jail, and Request 6, 2019-ICFO24680, regarding Hudson County Jail, that the responses to the FOIA requests had not been 

completed; as to Request 2, 2020-ICFO-18634 regarding Representative Lauren Underwood and 

electronic healthcare records, and Request 3, 2019-ICFO-33429, regarding Butler County Jail, 

that no documents had been received, and as to Request 5, 2018-ICFO-59138, regarding Jail 

Services Costs Statements, that though multiple interim releases of records had been provided 

(subsequent to the filing of the Complaint on May 5, 2020 and prior to the filing of the Amended 

Complaint on April 22, 2022), the cover letters for the releases did not identify the total number 

of pages of records gathered nor identify to which portion of the FOIA request the released 

records pertained, 

Post-Litigation Production of Records

28. After Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint were filed, ICE continued to 

process and release responsive records that had been previously gathered for five of the six FOIA 

requests5F

6

, and additional records gathered pursuant to new searches tasked upon litigation 

review, as follows: 

Request 2 -- 2020-ICFO-18634 – Lauren Underwood and 

 Electronic Healthcare Records 

6 As to Request 1, 2018-ICFO-56530, regarding ERO subfield office locations, ICE had produced 

responsive records prior to the lawsuit and considered its response complete. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 37 of 138 PageID #:407
14 

29. On January 27, 20216F

7

, in a combined production of records responsive to two of 

Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, including this one, ICE released four pages of responsive records to 

Plaintiff, with two pages release in full and two with redactions under FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) 

and (b)(7)(C). Of the 73 pages of records collected by ERO for this FOIA request, ICE 

determined that 30 pages were non-responsive, 12 pages needed consultation with other 

components of DHS, and 27 pages were referred to another DHS component for review and 

processing directly to Plaintiff. 

30. Upon litigation review, ICE determined that the 12 pages flagged for consultation 

with DHS may not have been sent out for consultation; the ICE FOIA Office thereafter sought 

consultation from DHS on 8 pages of email communications and 1 Excel spreadsheet that had 

been split into four “pages” and subsequently produced those records to Plaintiff in a 

supplemental release on October 5, 2023, with withholdings under FOIA Exemptions (b)(3), 

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C). 

Request 3 – 2019-ICFO-33429 Butler County Jail 

31. ICE released nearly 800 pages of records potentially responsive to this FOIA 

request in the first three interim productions on October 7, 2020, November 24, 2020, and 

January 6, 2021. These releases were combined productions with records responsive to two of 

Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, including this one, to which ICE applied redactions under FOIA 

Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). ICE also released in full an Excel spreadsheet 

from ERO’s Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis Division responsive to this request in a 

7 The 4th interim release cover letter for this post-litigation production is erroneously dated January 27, 

2020, rather than January 27, 2021. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 38 of 138 PageID #:408
15 

combined production of Excel spreadsheets responsive to several of Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, 

including this one, in a supplemental release on August 23, 2023. 

32. Upon litigation review and subsequent search taskings to the Office of 

Professional Responsibility (OPR) on July 15, 2023, and the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO) on September 15, 2023, ICE processed and released additional potentially 

responsive records from OPR on September 19, 2023, applying redactions under FOIA 

Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E), and from OCIO on November 22, 2023, applying 

redactions under FOIA Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). 

33. Upon further litigation review and subsequent search taskings to the ERO Detroit Field 

Office (which had oversight for ICE detainees held at the Butler County Jail in Ohio), additional 

potentially responsive email records were provided to the ICE FOIA Office which processed the 

emails, consisting of 169 pages, and released them to Plaintiff on April 30, 2024, applying 

redactions under FOIA Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). 

Request 4 – 2019-ICFO-29171 Kenosha County Jail 

34. In addition to the pre-litigation June 10, 2019 release of 15 pages of contractrelated records to Plaintiff, ICE released an additional 763 pages of records in response to this 

FOIA request in combined productions responsive to two of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, including 

this one, on October 7, 2020 and January 6, 2021, applying partial redactions under FOIA 

Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). In supplemental releases on July 17, 2023 and 

August 28, 2023, ICE released an additional 7 pages and one Excel spreadsheet responsive to 

this request from OPR related to detainee grievances at Kenosha County Jail, applying partial 

withholdings to certain pages under FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). 

Request 5 – 2018-ICFO-59138 Jail Services Costs Statements 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 39 of 138 PageID #:409
16 

35. In addition to the pre-litigation release of the 7-page memorandum from OPLA on 

February 7, 2020, ICE produced approximately 11,885 pages of additional records from OAQ 

potentially responsive to this FOIA request in 25 interim releases sent to Plaintiff from January 

24, 2021 to March 22, 2023, with partial withholdings under FOIA Exemptions (b)(4), (b)(5), 

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). Upon litigation review, there were Excel spreadsheets that were 

provided by OAQ pertaining to jail services costs that were not previously processed and those 

were released in full to Plaintiff on August 28, 2023. 

Request 6 – 2019-ICFO-24680 Hudson County Jail 

36. ICE processed approximately 819 pages and 3 Excel spreadsheets of potentially 

responsive documentation for this request. ICE determined that 68 pages were non-responsive or 

duplicates, 254 pages and the 3 Excels were released in full, and portions of 497 pages were 

withheld in part under FOIA Exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). 

III. INFORMATION REGARDING ICE’S STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR 

INITIATING SEARCHES IN RESPONSE TO FOIA REQUESTS 

37. When the ICE FOIA Office receives a FOIA request, the intake staff evaluates it 

to determine if it is a proper FOIA request per the DHS FOIA regulation, 6 C.F.R. § 5.37F

8

. If it is 

a proper request, it is assigned a case tracking number. 

38. If a FOIA request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the ICE FOIA 

Office will seek clarification from the requestor. If the requested information is under the 

purview of a DHS component other than ICE, the ICE FOIA Office will refer the request to the 

appropriate DHS component for processing and a direct response to the requestor. 

8

 6 C.F.R. § 5.3 sets forth the requirements for making proper FOIA requests, including describing the 

records in sufficient detail to allow agency personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 40 of 138 PageID #:410
17 

39. Based upon a requestor’s description of the records being sought and the ICE 

FOIA Office’s knowledge of the missions of the various program offices, the ICE FOIA Office 

identifies which program offices within ICE are reasonably likely to possess responsive records, 

if any, and to initiate searches within those program offices. This determination requires a 

familiarity with the holdings of ICE’s records systems, applicable records disposition schedules, 

and the substantive and functional mandates of numerous ICE program offices. 

40. ICE records are maintained by leadership offices and within ICE directorates 

(also called program offices), such as relevant here - ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations 

at Headquarters (ERO) and ERO Field Offices; ICE Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ); 

ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR); ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor 

(OPLA); ICE Office of Congressional Relations (OCR), and ICE office of the Chief Information 

Officer (OCIO). Each program office within ICE has a designated point of contact (“POC”) who 

is the primary person responsible for communications between the program office and the ICE 

FOIA Office. Each of these FOIA POCs is a person with detailed knowledge about the 

operations of their program office. Once the ICE FOIA Office determines the appropriate 

program offices for a given request, it provides the FOIA POCs within each of those program 

offices with a copy of the FOIA request and instructs them to conduct a search for responsive 

records. 

41. The FOIA POCs then review the FOIA request along with any case-specific 

instructions that may have been provided by the ICE FOIA Office, and based on the FOIA 

POCs’ experience and knowledge of their program office’s practices and activities, forward the 

request and instructions to individual employee(s) or component office(s) within the program 

office that they believe are reasonably likely to have responsive records. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 41 of 138 PageID #:411
18 

42. Per the ICE FOIA Office’s instructions, the individuals and component offices are 

directed to conduct searches of their file systems, including both paper files and electronic files, 

which in their judgment, based on their knowledge of the way they routinely keep records, would 

most likely be the files to contain responsive documents. After those searches are completed, the 

individuals and component offices provide any potentially responsive records to their program 

office’s FOIA POC, who in turn provides the records to the ICE FOIA Office. The ICE FOIA 

Office then reviews the collected records for responsiveness and application of appropriate 

withholdings. 

43. ICE individual employees and program offices use various systems to maintain 

records such as investigative files, records regarding the operation of ICE programs, and 

administrative records. Similarly, ICE employees maintain records in several ways, including 

storing electronic records on their individual computer hard drives, their program office’s shared 

drive (if the office uses one), DVDs, CDs, or USB storage devices. The determination of 

whether these electronic locations need to be searched in response to a particular FOIA tasking, 

as well as how to conduct any necessary searches, is necessarily based on the way the 

employee/office maintains the relevant files. 

44. Additionally, ICE employees use the Microsoft Outlook email system. ICE 

employees use various methods to store their Microsoft Outlook email files: some archive their 

files monthly, without separating by subject; others archive their email by topic or by program, 

and still others may create PST files of their emails and store them on their hard drive or shared 

drive. Like other searches of emails, an employee will complete a search of email archives if 

determined that the archive may contain potentially responsive documents; this determination is 

based on the FOIA request, the FOIA tasking and instructions provided by the ICE FOIA Office 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 42 of 138 PageID #:412
19 

and/or the program office FOIA POC, and the individual employees’ knowledge of the methods 

in which they store emails according to their individual work-related needs. 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ICE PROGRAM OFFICES TASKED AND THE 

SEACHES CONDUCTED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS IN THIS 

LAWSUIT 

45. Based on the categories and descriptions of records requested in Plaintiff’s six 

FOIA requests, and following the ICE standard procedures for initiating searches set forth in 

Section III above, the ICE FOIA Office determined that ERO,OAQ, OPR, OPLA,OCR, and 

OCIO should be tasked as the program offices reasonably likely to have responsive records. 

ERO 

46. ERO identifies and apprehends removable noncitizens, detains these individuals 

when necessary, and removes undocumented noncitizens from the United States. ERO also 

transports removable noncitizens from point to point, manages undocumented noncitizens in 

custody or in an alternative to detention program, provides access to legal resources and 

representatives of advocacy groups, and removes individuals from the United States who have 

been ordered to be deported. ERO comprises multiple headquarters divisions including Field 

Operations, Enforcement, Custody Management (CM), Removal, ICE Health Service Corps. 

(IHSC), Operations Support, Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis (LESA), Non-Detained 

Custody Management, plus 25 ERO Field Offices across the country, and more than 7,900 

employees. The ERO Information Disclosure Unit (IDU) manages and processes FOIA requests 

which seek records reasonably likely to be generated and maintained by ERO, and serves as the 

FOIA POC for this program office. 

OAQ

47. OAQ, a component of ICE’s Management and Administration program office, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 43 of 138 PageID #:413
20 

provides acquisition solutions in support of the ICE and DHS missions. Acquisition management 

and solutions includes traditional contracting functions, requirements definition, assessment and 

oversight of contract performance, and technical and management direction. OAQ includes the 

Detention Compliance and Removal unit (DCR), which provides acquisition support to ICE 

Headquarters and Field Offices, and to ERO in the planning, awarding, and administering 

contracts for law enforcement and compliance requirements, including contracts related to 

detention services. 

OPR

48. OPR is charged with upholding ICE’s professional standards through a multidisciplinary approach to security, inspections, and investigations. OPR is responsible for ICE’s 

entire security portfolio, conducting independent reviews of ICE programs and operations, 

impartially investigating allegations of criminal and/or serious misconduct and other wrongdoing 

impacting ICE personnel and operations, to support the larger ICE mission of promoting 

homeland security and public safety by safeguarding organizational integrity. 

OPLA

49. OPLA is the legal program in ICE with over 1,250 attorneys and 290 support 

personnel. OPLA serves as the representative of ICE is removal proceedings in immigration 

court and provides specialized legal advice and legal services to all ICE directorates and program 

offices. In addition to OPLA Headquarters in Washington D.C., there are 25 OPLA field 

locations in more than 60 cities throughout the United States. OPLA’s Government Information 

Law Division (GILD) provides ICE with legal advice on all matters relating to the disclosure of 

agency information, works with the ICE FOIA Office to review their work at the administrative 

level, adjudicates FOIA appeals, and works closely with ICE’s FOIA Office and the U.S. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 44 of 138 PageID #:414
21 

Department of Justice in coordinating the agency’s response to FOIA litigation. 

OCR 

50. OCR, a component of the ICE Director’s Office, is the primary POC for the U.S. 

Congress and represents ICE on Capitol Hill through a broad variety of federal Congressional 

Liaison activities. OCR helps ICE leadership engage with Members of Congress and staff, 

evaluate potential legislative impacts to ICE, and provide information to Congressional decisionmakers about the agency’s mission and operations. 

OCIO 

51. OCIO provides information technology service and products that enable ICE and 

DHS to meet their respective missions, including gathering emails of DHS custodians that are 

archived or pertaining to custodians no longer employed by the agency, as was needed in 

responding to one of the FOIA requests in this case. 

Search re Request No. 1 – 2018-ICFO-56530 Subfield Office Locations

52. Plaintiff’s August 6, 2018 FOIA request sought a list of all ERO field and 

subfield offices by control city with phone numbers and addresses as well as the number of 

unique individuals in custody at those locations between certain timeframes. 

53. Upon review of Plaintiff’s request, the ICE FOIA office determined that ERO was 

the program office reasonably likely to have responsive records. 

 ERO Search 

54. On October 1, 2018, the ICE FOIA Office tasked the ERO IDU, which in turn 

tasked several sub-offices within ERO, including Custody Management (CM), Field Operations, 

and Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis Statistical Tracking Unit (LESA STU). ERO CM 

provides policy and oversight for and manages ICE detention operations to ensure safety, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 45 of 138 PageID #:415
22 

security, and care of noncitizens in ICE custody. ERO Field Operations provides guidance and 

coordination to ERO’s national field offices and headquarters, and provides guidance on policy 

and procedures, facilitating coordination to the ERO field offices. ERO’s LESA STU is the 

official reporting entity for ERO providing statistical reporting of ERO operations. STU 

provides routine reports on performance metrics for DHS components and provides ad hoc 

reporting to support requests that include congressional inquiries, inter-agency data, litigation 

and FOIA requests. On October 26, 2018, ERO’s CM responded that it did not maintain such 

information and deferred to either Field Operations or LESA. On October 29, 2018, ERO’s 

Field Operations responded that it also did not maintain such information. On March 15, 2019, 

ERO released to Plaintiff a LESA STU spreadsheet, with no redactions, showing initial book-ins 

to detention facilities provided for the time identified in the request. 

55. On June 18, 2019, after receiving Plaintiff’s appeal dated May 10, 2019, OPLA 

GILD remanded the FOIA request to the ICE FOIA Office to conduct additional searches for a 

list of domestic and abroad field and subfield offices to include phone numbers and addresses of 

the locations, but noting that an ERO POC had confirmed that ERO did not track individuals 

who were held for over 24 hours for the requested time period. 

56. On June 21, 2019, an ERO IDU Mission Support Specialist, who based on the 

knowledge of the offices mission, conducted a search of the ERO Intranet Home Page 

using search terms “phone lists” and “field offices” and located responsive 

documentation which was provided to the ICE FOIA Office on June 21, 2019. The ICE 

FOIA Office reviewed the documentation and released responsive, nonexempt portions 

of the documentation to Plaintiff on June 26, 2019. 

Search re Request No. 2 – 2020-ICFO-18634 Lauren Underwood and 

Electronic Health Records 

57. Plaintiff’s November 22, 2019 FOIA request sought DHS communications to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 46 of 138 PageID #:416
23 

which Representative Lauren Underwood (D-IL), or any member of her staff were a party to 

related to DHS creating an integrated Electronic Health Records System (eHR). The eHR is the 

result of ICE transforming the detainee health recordkeeping system by replacing multiple standalone legacy systems and paper-based files with a highly-automated, web-based centralized 

electronic health record system for medical treatment and care for detainees in ICE custody. 

ICE’s Health Service Corps (IHSC) oversees the eHR for detainees held in custody by ERO, and 

is a component program office of ERO. 

58. Upon review of Plaintiff’s request, the ICE FOIA office determined that ERO and 

OCR were the program offices reasonably likely to have records responsive to Plaintiff’s request 

and tasked those program offices with a search on March 2, 2020. 

 ERO Search 

59. On March 4, 2020, within ERO, IHSC was tasked to conduct a search. The IHSC 

Chief of Health Information Technology, who was the POC for the eHR integration project that 

is the subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, searched his Outlook using the search terms “Thomas 

Wilkinson” (the Chief Medical Officer for DHS Headquarters), “DHS ehr” and “ehr integration.” 

In addition, on March 4, 2020, an ERO program officer familiar with the DHS Health System 

coordination activities searched his Outlook using the search term “Tom Wilkinson” as he was 

the POC coordinating the effort to get an eHR for CBP. Both ERO POCs conducting searches 

located responsive documentation and provided it to the ICE FOIA Office on March 18, 2020. 

60. Pursuant to litigation, the ICE FOIA Office released responsive, nonexempt 

portions of the documentation pursuant to these searches by ERO to Plaintiff on January 27, 

2021, August 28, 2023 and October 5, 2023. 

 OCR Search 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 47 of 138 PageID #:417
24 

61. On March 9, 2020, two OCR liaison specialists conducted computer searches and 

an Outlook search using the terms “Lauren Underwood (D-IL)”, “Underwood”, “Rep. 

Underwood”, and HR 3525 and found no records. On March 10, 2020, an OCR legislative 

analyst conducted a computer search and Outlook search using the terms “Lauren Underwood 

(D-IL)” and found no records. 

Search re Request No. 3 – 2019-ICFO-33429 Butler County Jail

62. Plaintiff’s March 25, 2019 FOIA request sought documents ICE has regarding 

Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) related to the Butler County Jail work program 

for detainees; compliance reports and follow-up correspondence; grievances or complaints, 

contract addenda, and data tracking the length of time people are held in the facility for the 

timeframe April 11, 2014 to the time of production, and identified Tae Johnson and Kevin Landy 

as people likely to have responsive documents. 

63. Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s request, the ICE FOIA office determined that 

ERO was the program office reasonably likely to have responsive records and, after obtaining 

clarification from Plaintiff on which of three Butler County jails was at issue, tasked ERO with a 

search related to the Butler County Jail in Ohio, on July 15, 2019. 

 ERO Search 

64. On July 16, 2019, an ERO CM Mission Support Specialist conducted a search on 

ERO’s Sharepoint site using the detention location code (a.k.a. “DETLOC”) for the Butler 

County jail at issue, and on July 23, 2019, an ERO CM Consultant conducted a computer search 

by using the search function of the ERO shared drive using the search term “facility list report” 

noting that the phrase would pull up information potentially responsive to the FOIA request. 

Both ERO CM POCs located responsive documentation which was provided to the ICE FOIA 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 48 of 138 PageID #:418
25 

Office on July 26, 2019. 

65. On August 2, 2019, a Statistician from ERO LESA STU conducted a search of the 

Enforcement Integrated Database (EID) via the ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) 

Database using the search terms “length of stay” and “Butler County Jail” run together as that 

was the focus of the FOIA request for LESA STU. The EID is a common database repository 

for all records created, updated, and accessed by several software applications. The EID captures 

and maintains information related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of 

individuals encountered during immigration and law enforcement investigations and operations 

conducted by ICE and CBP. IIDS contains a subset of the EID database repository that provides 

a continuously updated snapshot of selected EID data. The LESA STU Statistician located 

responsive documentation regarding intakes and releases from the Butler County Jail as well as 

length of stay for Fiscal Year 2014 onward, covering the relevant timeframe for the request, and 

provided those records to the ICE FOIA Office. This information was released it to Plaintiff on 

August 28, 2023. 

66. Upon litigation review, the ICE FOIA Office re-tasked ERO CM for a new 

search, and the ERO Detroit Field with a search. ERO CM responded that it had no further 

documentation to provide other than what was previously submitted to the ICE FOIA Office in 

2019, and deferred to field operations for anything specific to the Butler County Jail regarding 

the Voluntary Work Program (VWP), which would be the ERO Detroit Field Office. The ERO 

Detroit Field Office completed its search on April 15, 2024, and eight email strings were 

provided to the ICE FOIA Office which processed and released to Plaintiff on April 30, 2024. 

67. Upon litigation review, the ICE FOIA Office additionally tasked OPR and OAQ 

on July 18, 2023, given that the request sought Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 49 of 138 PageID #:419
26 

information related to any voluntary work program (VWP) at Butler County Jail, and 

information regarding inspection reports and grievances. 

 OPR Search 

68. On July 18, 2023, an Acting Unit Chief for OPR Office of Detention Oversight 

(ODO) spent an hour conducting a computer search of the hard drive and shared drive, and of 

Outlook, using the search term “Butler County” as the name used for the facility, and gathered 

potentially responsive records consisting of inspection-related reports and communications for 

the Butler County Jail for the years 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, and provided those 

records to the ICE FOIA Office which processed and released these records to Plaintiff on 

September 19, 2023. OPR ODO provided further information that ODO did not inspect the 

Butler County Jail in 2014, 2016, or 2017, and that OPR Investigations conducted a search with 

no results. 

 OAQ Search 

69. On September 18, 2023, a Contract Specialist and Policy Analyst associated with 

the Detroit Field Office for OAQ who conducted a search responded to GILD’s follow up on the 

supplemental search tasking. The Contract Specialist stated that responsive documents related to 

Butler County were previously provided in response to a FOIA request associated with another 

FOIA request of Plaintiff’s involved in this litigation, and that there were no supplemental 

submissions from OAQ for this request. However, after further discussions, it was determined 

that due to a misunderstanding as to subject of the supplemental tasking on July 18, 2023, OAQ 

had not previously included Butler County in the search. On April 8, 2024, OAQ expedited and 

completed its search for this request and located 15 pages of potentially responsive records to the 

first item in Plaintiff’s request, including the original IGSA between ICE and Butler County, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 50 of 138 PageID #:420
27 

a modification that refers to various detention standards that reference the VWP. OAQ advised 

that it would not have records responsive to items 2 and 3 of Plaintiff’s request. The records were 

processed by ICE FOIA and nonexempt portions were released to Plaintiff on April 10, 2024. 

70. Upon further litigation review, it was determined that it was reasonably likely that 

responsive records could be located by an OCIO search for archived emails of two custodians 

identified by Plaintiff in this FOIA request. 

OCIO Search 

71. On September 15, 2023, ICE FOIA tasked OCIO via a Request for Electronic 

Data (“RED”) Ticket for email communications of Tae Johnson and Kevin Landy for the 

relevant timeframe specified in this FOIA request. Managed by the Enterprise Operations Branch 

(EOB) within the OCIO at ICE, the RED application is designed to assist with all requests for 

electronic data including requests to preserve and retrieve electronic data such as email, hard 

drive images, and electronic files. Through the RED application ICE uses Enterprise Vault (EV) 

and Microsoft Office 365 systems to capture and preserve all sent, deleted, and received 

electronic records of all ICE users. EV holds old email from January 2009 to June 2018; 

Microsoft Office 365 holds email from July 2018 to present. The RED Ticket was used in this 

case because the email custodians identified were no longer employed by DHS. OCIO EOB 

conducted the search in this case using a search function to collect all email, including 

attachments sent or received by the identified custodians for the relevant timeframe. 

72. The emails and attachments gathered by OCIO were made available to the ICE 

FOIA Office which uploaded them to Relativity for de-duplication and threading. Relativity is 

an eDiscovery tool which was used to process and further filter the results for responsive data. 

Relativity’s analytics email threading greatly reduces the time and complexity of reviewing 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 51 of 138 PageID #:421
28 

emails by identifying and reviewing only inclusive emails. An inclusive email is the final email 

message in an email thread that contains all the previous content of that email thread, thus saving 

reviewers the time and effort required to review each email in that thread and focus only on the 

last one that contains the entire thread; it is an email that contains unique content not included in 

any other email. Next, the ICE FOIA Office filtered the email against the following search term 

formulas suggested by the OPLA GILD attorney familiar with the request and handling this 

litigation to further narrow the data for potentially responsive records: “Butler County Jail” AND 

“work program”; “Butler County Jail” AND “voluntary work program” OR “VWP”; “Butler 

County Jail” AND “porters”; “Butler County Jail” AND “same rate as prisoners”. The ICE FOIA 

Office thereafter processed and released responsive nonexempt portions of the emails with their 

attachments to Plaintiff on November 22, 2023. 

Search re Request No. 4 – 2019-ICFO-29171 Kenosha County Jail 

73. Plaintiff’s January 16, 2019 FOIA request sought ICE records related to health 

care services at the Kenosha County Jail for ICE detainees, including contracts and addenda, logs 

of grievances, medical expense reports, reports of hunger strikes, and reports of outside 

hospitalizations for ICE detainees. 

74. Upon review of Plaintiff’s request, the ICE FOIA office determined that ERO, 

including its Chicago Field Office, as well as OAQ and OPR, were the program offices 

reasonably likely to have records responsive to Plaintiff’s request and tasked those offices with a 

search on February 26, 2019. 

 ERO Search 

75. In a partial response provided on February 27, 2019, ERO advised that it did not 

maintain medical records for detention centers that are not ICE Service Processing Centers, such 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 52 of 138 PageID #:422
29 

as Kenosha County Jail, and that such records must be sought from the detention facility directly. 

76. On February 27, 2019, a Supervisory Detention Deportation Officer from ERO’s 

Chicago Field Office, who due to his duties would be the person in the office reasonably likely to 

have access to responsive records, conducted a search of Outlook using the search terms 

“Kenosha”, “hunger strike” and “grievance” and did not locate responsive records. On October 

21, 2019, ERO advised the ICE FOIA Office that it does not maintain grievance logs for the 

Kenosha County Jail and that the requester should contact the County directly for any such 

records. 

OAQ Search 

77. On March 4, 2019, a Contracting Officer’s Representative for ERO’s Chicago 

Field Office, who due to his OAQ duties in overseeing the contract between ICE and Kenosha 

County would be knowledgeable about searching for responsive records, spent 12 hours 

conducting a computer search, manually reviewing individual computer folders, and also 

searched Outlook using search terms “Kenosha”, “Kenosha Medical”, “Kenosha Invoices”, 

“Kenosha 2015”, Kenosha 2016”, “Kenosha 2017”, “Kenosha 2018”, “Kenosha 2019”, “Medical 

Issues”, “G-514s” (ICE purchase requisition forms), “Contracts/MODS” (for contract 

modifications) and “Approved Invoices”. Responsive documentation was located and provided 

to the ICE FOIA Office on March 15, 2019. 

78. During March 22 to March 28, 2019, a Senior Advisor and Procurement Analyst 

with OAQ’s Detention, Compliance & Removals (DCR) unit conducted a search of OAQ’s 

Procurement Request Information System Management (PRISM) database using the search 

terms “Kenosha”, “Kenosha County”, and various DUNS numbers and contract award numbers; 

a computer search of various shared drives, and the Facilities List using the search terms 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 53 of 138 PageID #:423
30 

“Kenosha” and “Kenosha County.” The PRISM database is a software product used at DHS 

since 2004, which provides full procurement lifecycle support including all phases from 

advanced acquisition planning through the contract closeout. Responsive documentation was 

located and provided to the ICE FOIA Office on March 29, 2019 and April 1, 2019. The POC 

who conducted the search for OAQ advised the ICE FOIA Office that the contracts with 

Kenosha County were limited to detention and transportation services; do not include medical 

services which the U.S. Marshal Service Agreement associated with the Kenosha County Jail 

indicates would be provided by the local government, and that most of the information identified 

in the FOIA request would come from ERO. 

 OPR Search 

79. During February 26 to April 30, 2019, an ICE OPR Management Program 

Analyst, who due to his duties would be the person in the office reasonably likely to locate 

responsive records, if any, conducted a search for all aspects of the FOIA request in the database 

for OPR’s Inspections and Detention Oversight using search terms from the FOIA request. On 

March 12, 2019, an OPR Unit Chief, due to his duties and knowledge of his program offices 

recordkeeping, used a search engine on the shared drive using the search terms “Kenosha 

medical” and “Kenosha grievance.” Both OPR FOIA POCs located responsive documentation 

and provided it to the ICE FOIA Office on about May 1, 2019. 

80. In addition to the pre-litigation June 10, 2019 release of OAQ documents mentioned 

above, pursuant to litigation, the ICE FOIA Office released the remaining responsive, 

nonexempt portions of the documentation gathered from ERO and OPR to Plaintiff on October 

7, 2020 and January 6, 2021, and in supplemental releases on July 17, 2023 and August 28, 

2023. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 54 of 138 PageID #:424
31 

Search re Request No. 5 – 2018-ICFO-59138 Jail Services Cost Statements

81. Plaintiff’s August 23, 2018 FOIA Request sought the most recent Jail Services 

Costs Statements (JSCS) for a list of 14 detention facilities that house ICE detainees under 

Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs); a particular memorandum from a former OPLA 

Chief of the Commercial and Administrative Law Division regarding funding IGSAs; 

communications from ICE components that handle Berks County, PA IGSAs, to include 

grievance logs for Berks County, PA, Hudson County, NJ and Otero County Processing Center; 

JSCS and contracts for Berks County Family Residential Facility and Hudson County, NJ, and 

evaluations for JSCS for the list of 14 IGSA detention facilities. 

82. Upon the initial review of Plaintiff’s request, the ICE FOIA Office determined 

that because of the subject matter of the FOIA request, OAQ and ERO were the program offices 

reasonably likely to have records responsive to Plaintiff’s request and tasked those offices with a 

search on September 5, 2018. 

 OAQ Search 

83. OAQ’s initial response on September 16, 2018 was that OAQ did not oversee 

JSCS and recommended the request be directed to ERO. After GILD remanded Plaintiff’s 

appeal for further searches, on February 27, 2019, OAQ was re-tasked for new searches. From 

September 2, 2020 through September 8, 2020, an OAQ Senior Advisor Contract Specialist, 

based on her duties and knowledge of her program office’s recordkeeping, spent 48 hours 

conducting a search in the PRISM database using detention facility location codes for each of the 

14 IGSA detention sites identified in the FOIA request, which in turn identified all agency 

contract numbers for those facilities. OAQ gathered 11,855 pages of contract-related documents 

potentially responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and provided them to the ICE FOIA Office. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 55 of 138 PageID #:425
32 

OAQ provided the following considerations for its production of potentially responsive 

documents: some of the contract-related documents sought were no longer available for a variety 

of reasons, including beyond records retention timeframes and because personal files of 

executing contracting officers and contract specialists no longer with the agency were not 

accessible; for contracts directly between the agency and various cities and/or counties, the 

agency would not have contract copies for third party contractors which may be other detention, 

guard and transportation service providers. The ICE FOIA Office processed and released these 

records to Plaintiff in multiple releases from January 24, 2021 to March 22, 2023. 

 ERO Search 

84. ERO’s initial response on October 23, 2018 was that ERO’s Budget Formulation 

Unit (BFU), Budget Execution Unit (BEU) and Contract Management Unit (CMU) had no 

responsive records, but that the BFU recommended deferring to ERO’s Custody Management 

Division (CM) and the Detention Planning and Acquisition Unit (DPAU), and OAQ.

85. After GILD remanded Plaintiff’s appeal for further searches, on February 19, 

2019, the ICE FOIA Office tasked ERO’s CM and DPAU; ERO thereafter provided responsive 

documentation to the ICE FOIA Office. Upon litigation review, the ICE FOIA Office processed 

and released nonexempt portions of the ERO Excel spreadsheets, that had been gathered but 

inadvertently omitted from prior release, and released those to Plaintiff, on August 28, 2023, as 

part of a combined supplemental production related to Plaintiff’s other FOIA requests, including 

this one.

OPR Search 

86. On February 27, 2019, OPR was also tasked with a search. From August 27, 2020 to 

August 31, 2020, an OPR Management and Program Analyst, based on his duties and knowledge 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 56 of 138 PageID #:426
33 

of his program office’s recordkeeping systems, spent 8 hours searching the Joint Integrity Case 

Management System (JICMS) database for grievance logs pertaining to the Otero, Berks County, 

and Hudson County detention facilities and located responsive documentation which was 

provided to the ICE FOIA Office. The JICMS is a case management system used by ICE and 

other components of DHS operated by ICE OPR to record claims of employee misconduct, 

manage criminal and administrative investigations, and to track employee and contractor 

disciplinary actions. Upon litigation review, the ICE FOIA Office determined that responsive 

documentation from OPR, which was an Excel spreadsheet with grievance data for Otero, Berks 

County and Hudson County facilities, was inadvertently omitted from prior productions, and 

released the nonexempt portions of the OPR Excel spreadsheet to Plaintiff on October 5, 2023. 

Search re Request No. 6 – 2019-ICFO-24680 Hudson County Jail 

87. Plaintiff’s December 16, 2018 FOIA request sought ICE records related to health 

care services for ICE detainees at the Hudson County Jail, including contracts, grievance logs, 

medical expense reports, reviews of the health care service, reports of hunger strikes and 

hospitalization of ICE detainees outside of the detention facility. Upon review of Plaintiff’s 

request, the ICE FOIA office tasked OPR, OAQ and ERO. 

 OPR Search 

88. On February 22, 2019, an OPR Section Chief, based on his duties and knowledge 

of his office’s recordkeeping, spent 2.5 hours conducting a computer search using search terms 

“medical”, “grievance”, and a manual search of computer file folders for inspections related to 

the Hudson County Jail, and an Outlook search using the terms “Hudson”, and “medical”, 

grievance” and “hunger” in connection with the Hudson County facility, and located responsive 

documentation. On April 15 and 16, 2019, an OPR Management and Program Analyst, also 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 57 of 138 PageID #:427
34 

familiar with the program office’s recordkeeping, spent 6 hours searching the JICMS database 

using search terms “case summary”, “ROI synopsis”, “ROI narrative”, “hunger strike”, “medical 

treatment”, “hospital” and for FY2015 (fiscal year 2015) through FY2019 (fiscal year 2019) in 

connection with “Hudson County” and “not CBP cases”, and located responsive documentation. 

Both of these OPR FOIA POCs provided the records to the ICE FOIA Office which processed 

and released nonexempt portions to Plaintiff. 

OAQ Search 

89. The FOIA POC for OAQ reviewed the substance of the request and based on 

experience and knowledge of OAQ’s practices and contract activities with detention facilities 

responded that it had no contracts associated with the medical care provider CFG Health Systems 

for the Hudson County Jail, and that therefore a search would not be reasonably calculated to 

uncover any relevant documents. 

ERO Search 

90. The FOIA POC for ERO interpreted the request to be seeking medical records 

which it did not maintain for the Hudson County facility and so initially determined that a search 

would not locate responsive documentation. After Plaintiff’s appeal, GILD remanded the 

request with further instructions to ERO to conduct searches. An ERO FOIA POC determined 

that both the Newark and New York City Field Offices and IHSC (a component of ERO) should 

be tasked with searches as these program offices had oversight for ICE detainees housed at the 

Hudson County Facility. 

91. On December 2, 2019, two ERO Newark Field Office Supervisory Detention 

and Deportation Officers (SDDOs), based on their supervisory duties and knowledge of their 

program offices’ recordkeeping, spent 3 hours conducting a computer search of the hard drive 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 58 of 138 PageID #:428
35 

and shared drive and search of Outlook using search terms “hunger strike”, “hospitalization”, 

“hospital admission”, “Hudson hunger strike”, “SIR8F

9

 Hudson” and “Hudson”. That same date, 

an ERO New York Field Office Assistant Field Office Director (AFOD) performed a search. The 

AFOD assists the Field Office Director in managing the field office employees and is 

knowledgeable of the office’s recordkeeping systems. The AFOD conducted a computer search 

of the hard drive and shared drive and Outlook search using the terms “grievance”, “medical 

expense”, “health care services”, “hunger strikes” and hospital” in connection with the Hudson 

County Jail, and an IHSC Commander and Field Medical Coordinator spent 3 hours searching 

the IHSC tracker using the search terms “NYC AOR9F

10” and “Hudson”, and conducting a 

computer search using the search terms “Hudson hunger strike” and “Hudson hospital report”, as 

well as an Outlook search using the terms “Hudson AND hunger strike” and “Hudson AND 

hospital report.” Additionally, over the course of three days from November 29 to December 3, 

2019, a New York Field Office SDDO searched the database for Hudson County Jail Records 

using the search term “grievance” and manually checking paper files on the requested subject 

matter. Each of these searches resulted in responsive documentation which was provided to the 

ICE FOIA Office in December 2019, and the ICE FOIA Office processed and released 

nonexempt portions to Plaintiff in interim releases on November 24, 2020 and January 6, 2021.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORDS AT ISSUE 

92. ICE produced over 12,000 pages of responsive records to Plaintiff in response to 

9

 SIR stands for Significant Incident Report. 

10 NYC AOR stands for New York City Area of Responsibility. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 59 of 138 PageID #:429
36 

the 6 FOIA requests. The records at issue in this case are 421 pages selected by the parties to be 

included in the Vaughn Index, which are primarily ICE contract-related documents, as well as 

some emails, and inspection and compliance-related reports. As illustrated in table format in 

Exhibit B to the Statement of Facts, the Vaughn sampling of the 421 pages at issue as agreed to 

by the parties, includes records from most of the interim releases. See Exhibit B to the Statement 

of Facts – Table of Production Dates, Bates Stamp Numbers as applicable, Page Counts for 

Release in Full/Part or Withheld in Full, Vaughn Sample Page Count and Exemptions Asserted 

in the Productions. A complete description of the 421 pages of records at issue and the bases for 

the withholding of information in those documents, are detailed in ICE’s Vaughn Index attached 

here as Exhibit C.

93. Upon preparation of the Vaughn Index for this case, ICE voluntarily conducted a 

supplemental review of 199 pages included in the Vaughn sampling and lifted certain redactions 

that were applied in error, and, as a matter of discretion, lifted certain challenged redactions 

specifically regarding FOIA Exemption (b)(4) applied to certain cost information in ICE 

contracts directly with governmental entities (cities and/or counties) that were relatively remote 

in time. Those 199 pages were re-released to Plaintiff via DOJ’s USAfx Box Folder shared with 

Plaintiff on September 6, 2023, with their original Bates page numbers. 

 

VI. ORGANIZATION OF ICE’S VAUGHN INDEX 

94. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973), a Vaughn index accompanies this declaration providing a description of each 

redaction and applicable exemption in the pages that are at issue. See Exhibit C – Vaughn Index.

95. The Vaughn index is in a table format and contains four columns. The first 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 60 of 138 PageID #:430
37 

column identifies the interim release number, Bates page numbers or description of the 

document; the second column identifies the extent of withholdings taken on the documents 

(partial or full); the third column in detail describes the records and redactions applied, the 

reasons for the redactions and notes instances where ICE – during supplemental review – is 

lifting certain portions of the redactions. The fourth column identifies the FOIA exemptions 

applied by citing the full statute. 

VII. APPLICABLE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WITHHOLDINGS 

FOIA Exemption (b)(3)

96. ICE partially withheld from 1 page of the documents (Bates page number 2022-

ICLI-00042 807) information protected by FOIA Exemption (b)(3), 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3), 

because the information withheld related to the medical health update on an ICE detainee who is 

protected by a confidentiality statute that ICE may not identify because doing so would 

circumvent the confidentiality protections the statute is intended to establish. 

FOIA Exemption (b)(4) 

97. ICE partially withheld from 168 pages of documents (Bates page numbers 2022-

ICLI-00042 527, 1308-1315, 1347-1350, 1786-11789, 2056, 2183, 2185-2190, 2192-2194, 

2704-2707, 2721, 2736, 2739-2742, 2744-2747, 2913, 2918, 2932, 2938-2939, 2980, 3907-3910, 

3915, 4120-4123, CoreCivic 3-4, CoreCivic 7-16, CoreCivic 31-36, CoreCivic 62, GEO Group 

2-28, GEO Group 34, STGi 12-15, STGi 47-49, GEO Group 387, GEO Group 393-394, GEO 

Group 407, GEO Group 770-772, 8136-8145, 8729-8734, 8905, 9201, 9203-9204, CoreCivic 

122, 10350, 10365-10375, 10428-10429, 10544-10552, and 11086-11093) information protected 

by FOIA Exemption (b)(4), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), which protects trade secrets and commercial or 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 61 of 138 PageID #:431
38 

financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential. This exemption 

protects the interests of both the government and submitters of information to the government. 

The responsive records in this case to which (b)(4) withholdings were applied fall under the 

commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its 

owner. 

98. ICE withheld cost information related to contracts with STG International Inc. to 

provide medical staffing services for ICE detainees at multiple detention facilities across the 

United States, many of which are operated under Intergovernmental Service Agreements 

(IGSAs) with ICE to house ICE detainees in detention facilities owned by city and county 

government agencies. ICE similarly withheld cost information contained in contract documents 

with Berks County, Pennsylvania, which costs include financial information submitted by private 

contractors to provide detention-related services, including education and medical care for ICE 

detainees which are treated as confidential commercial or financial information. ICE withheld 

cost-related information submitted by private detention services contractors CoreCivic 

Corporation and The GEO Group related to direct contracts with ICE or via IGSAs between ICE 

and cities or counties providing detention facility space for ICE detainees, such as discount 

terms, bed day rates, hourly wage items for staffing, transport service miles to be under a fixed 

fee, and not to exceed cost amounts, among other items. ICE also withheld as proprietary 

commercial information schematic drawings submitted by CoreCivic for construction additions 

to detention facilities. 

FOIA Exemption (b)(5) 

99. The FOIA Exemption (b)(5), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), allows the withholding of 

inter- and intra-agency records that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 62 of 138 PageID #:432
39 

Pursuant to Exemption (b)(5), the three most frequently involved privileges are the deliberative 

process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege. 

100. Specifically, ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to partially withhold 

information on 6 pages of the documents at issue (Bates page numbers 2022-ICLI-00042 12056-

12058, 12060, 12222, and 12225) which consist of April 2014 email communications among 

Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning; Tae D. Johnson, 

Assistant Director, Custody Management, ERO; several ERO Executives for Custody 

Management; the Acting Director of ICE, Thomas Homan; Assistant Director of ICE Office of 

Public Affairs; the ICE Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretary, and ICE OPLA’s Acting 

Principal Legal Advisor Riah Ramlogan, in formulating responses to questions from the New 

York Times regarding detention facilities holding ICE detainees that have Voluntary Work 

Programs, the applicable detentions standards, and how and whether detainee workers are 

compensated. 

101. Redacted information under Exemption (b)(5) in these pages include Mr. Landy 

providing his intra-agency opinion in email to his fellow ICE Executives whether it would be a 

violation of ICE detention standards, if the Butler County Sherrif’s statement were true that 

immigrant detainees in Butler County Jail perform upkeep of their housing units without being 

paid, and what actions should be taken to address any issue (Bates pg. 12058, April 11, 2014 

email sent 1:15 p.m.). 

102. Exemption (b)(5) was applied to portions of an email from the Deputy Assistant 

Director for Custody Management (DAD CM) to the ICE Deputy Press Secretary; Mr. Landy; 

Mr. Johnson, and the DAD for Custody Programs, that identifies two detention facilities, where 

the DAD CM seeks clarification whether the reporter was claiming that detainee workers were 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 63 of 138 PageID #:433
40 

not receiving monetary compensation at those facilities, but then asks that the question be 

disregarded as more information is gathered from the Chief of Staff for CM (Bates pg. 12057, 

April 11, 2014 email sent 1:31 p.m.). 

103. Exemption (b)(5) was applied to portions of a draft proposed statement for the 

media in an email from the DAD for Custody Programs to fellow ICE Executives, which Mr. 

Landy opposes, and to portions of Mr. Landy’s email providing his intra-agency opinion to 

fellow ICE Executives that the proposed statement may contradict prior information released 

which may adversely impact the agency, and his recommendations on how to address the issue 

(Bates pg. 12056, April 11, 2014 email sent 4:03 p.m.). 

104. Exemption (b)(5) was also applied to a draft proposed statement to the media sent 

by email from Mr. Johnson to ICE Executives, including Acting ICE Director, Thomas Homan, 

which contains suggestions for interpreting ICE detention standards related to the VWP, and 

whether there were incidents of detention facilities not providing monetary compensation to 

detainee workers, and whether additional measures should be taken to oversee the issue (Bates 

pg. 12060, April 11, 2014 email sent 8:37 p.m.). Also redacted under Exemption (b)(5) were 

portions of Mr. Landy’s email to the Acting Unit Chief for the Detention Standards Compliance 

Unit and the DAD CM offering his opinions, suggestions and critiques to a proposed ERO 

Custody Management Division Authorized Facilities List (spreadsheet) with detainee work 

programs for potential release to the media (Bates pg. 12225, April 22, 2014 email sent 2:51 

p.m.). 

105. Redacted information from the emails described above, which include discussion 

among ICE Executives of proposed responses to the media and proposed spreadsheet data on 

detention facilities with VWPs is deliberative. The ICE Executives in these emails are sharing 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 64 of 138 PageID #:434
41 

thoughts, opinions, and recommendations for responding to media inquiries on how the VWP is 

implemented in detention facilities, and decisions were not finalized. The deliberative process 

privilege protects the internal deliberations of the government by exempting recommendations, 

analysis, and discussions undertaken to aid agency decision-making. Draft documents may 

never evolve into a final form; material is withdrawn during the decision-making process, and 

the process by which a draft evolves into a final document may itself be considered deliberative. 

Release of draft material and thoughts, suggestions, critiques and opinions on matters as part of 

agency decisions would serve to chill the decision-making process because it would discourage 

the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free and frank exchange of information and 

ideas between agency personnel. It may also cause agency personnel to be less inclined to 

produce and circulate materials for the consideration and comment of their peers. The privilege 

serves to maintain the integrity of agency decision-making processes by encouraging open and 

candid discussions. 

106. Exemption (b)(5) was applied to portions of ICE Acting Principal Legal Advisor 

Riah Ramlogan’s email to her ICE clients Mr. Landy and ICE Deputy Director Dan Ragsdale, 

copying other ICE Executive clients, providing her legal analysis and opinion of ICE’s authority 

to pay VWP participants $1 per day (Bates pg. 12222, May 28, 2014, sent 9:29 a.m.); to portions 

of Mr. Landy’s comments and opinions in response and Ms. Ramlogan’s providing further 

background and opinion on whether the $1 per day is a maximum or a minimum rate (Bates pg. 

12222, May 28, 2014 email sent 9:18 a.m.), and to portions of Ms. Ramlogan’s email to Mr. 

Landy, Mr. Johnson and other ICE Executive clients providing her legal opinion on ICE’s 

authority to pay VWP participants and what questions remain as to the authorized rate of pay 

(Bates 12222, May 2, 2014 email sent 10:55 a.m.). The information withheld on this page was 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 65 of 138 PageID #:435
42 

deliberative as it contained recommendations, analysis, and discussions undertaken to aid agency 

decision-making. The information redacted also contained attorney-client privileged information 

provided by the Acting Principal Legal Advisor for ICE, Ms. Ramlogan to her clients. 

107. The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between 

attorneys and their clients relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional 

advice. It applies to facts divulged by a client to his attorney, and encompasses any opinions 

given by an attorney to her client based upon those facts, as well as communications between 

attorneys that reflect client-supplied information. The attorney-client privilege is not limited to 

protecting documents created in anticipation of litigation. The attorney-client privilege applies to 

the emails chain identified above (Bates pg. 12222) because the redacted portions constitute 

and/or reflect opinions and analysis of ICE OPLA attorneys regarding the VWP in detention 

facilities holding ICE detainees. 

FOIA Exemption (b)(7) Threshold 

108. The FOIA Exemption (b)(7), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7), establishes a threshold 

requirement that to withhold information based on Exemption (b)(7), the records or information 

must be compiled for law enforcement purposes. The information for which FOIA Exemption 

(b)(7) has been asserted in the instant matter satisfies this threshold requirement. Pursuant to the 

Immigration and Nationality Act codified under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security is charged with the administration and enforcement of laws relating to the 

immigration and naturalization of noncitizens, subject to certain exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 

1103. ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, and the second largest investigative agency in 

the federal government. ICE is responsible, among other duties, for identifying and eliminating 

vulnerabilities within the nation’s borders. Created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 66 of 138 PageID #:436
43 

and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, ICE now has more than 20,000 employees and offices in all 50 states and 

dozens of foreign countries. ICE is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and 

identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities within the nation’s borders.

109. The ICE ERO directorate oversees programs and conducts operations to identify 

and apprehend removable noncitizens, to detain these individuals when necessary, and to remove 

illegal noncitizens from the United States. Within ICE, ERO has broad authority and prioritizes 

the apprehension, arrest, and removal of convicted criminals. ERO manages all logistical aspects 

of the removal process, including domestic transportation, detention, alternatives to detention 

programs, bond management, and supervised release. 

110. The ICE information at issue in this case was compiled by ICE because it relates 

to ICE’s obligation to enforce the immigration laws of the United States by investigating nonU.S. individuals who may be illegally present in the United States, and housing and caring for 

those individuals subject to detention during the immigration and/or deportation process, which 

necessarily includes records associated with the detention-related services, including medical 

care provided to ICE detainees. Therefore, all the responsive records at issue in this lawsuit were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes and meet the threshold requirement of FOIA Exemption 

(b)(7). 

FOIA Exemptions 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) & (7)(C) 

111. FOIA Exemption (b)(6), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), protects from disclosure matters 

that are “personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 67 of 138 PageID #:437
44 

112. FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(C), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), protects from disclosure 

records or information “compiled for law enforcement purposes” if a release of the records or 

information “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy.” 

113. When asserting FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), ICE balances an 

individual’s personal privacy interest against the public’s interest in the disclosure of the 

information and shedding light on ICE’s performance of its statutory duties. 

114. Here, ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6) in conjunction with Exemption 

(b)(7)(C) to protect from disclosure the names, initials, signatures, phone numbers, email 

addresses, and suite numbers of federal law enforcement officers and other government 

employees, as well as non-public facing employees of private detention services and medical 

care staffing companies that are found in the documents. 

115. The federal employees, city and county employees and private company 

employees referenced in the responsive records assist ICE with its law enforcement mission 

which includes providing housing, education, and healthcare for ICE detainees. ICE recognizes 

that these government employees and private contractors’ employees have privacy interests in 

not becoming targets of harassment by individuals who may begrudge them for their 

involvement in immigration law enforcement and in remaining free of interference in the 

performance of their duties by persons who are currently of interest to law enforcement or who 

oppose the ICE mission. 

116. Public identification of these individuals identified in these records could also 

result in them being subjected to personal requests for access to law enforcement information or 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 68 of 138 PageID #:438
45 

requests for information about ongoing or closed investigations, or otherwise expose them to 

undue public attention. 

117. Having determined that the individuals identified in the responsive records have a 

cognizable privacy interest in not having their information released, ICE FOIA then balanced the 

interest in safeguarding the individuals’ privacy from unnecessary public scrutiny against the 

public’s interest in the disclosure of the information for purposes of shedding light on the 

operations and activities of ICE in the performance of its statutory duties. In each instance where 

Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) were applied, the redaction was limited to the name of the 

individual or other personally identifiable information. This information, if released, would not 

shed further light as to the operations or activities of ICE. Plaintiff has failed to articulate any 

public interest that could be advanced by releasing the personally identifiable information of the 

individuals in question. Plaintiff’s personal interest in obtaining the records does not factor into 

the analysis conducted by ICE. 

118. Based upon the traditional recognition of strong privacy interests in law 

enforcement records, the categorical withholding of third-party information of non-public facing 

persons identified in law enforcement records is appropriate. Moreover, the third parties 

identified in these records have not provided consent to the release of their personally identifying 

information as required by 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.3(a) & 5.21(d). 

FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) 

119. FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), protects from disclosure 

records compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques 

and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose 

guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if disclosure could reasonably be 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 69 of 138 PageID #:439
46 

expected to risk circumvention of law. It also protects from disclosure techniques and 

procedures that are not well known to the public. 

120. ICE has withheld from 113 pages of documents at issue (Bates page numbers 

2020-ICLI-00042 481, 527, 1307, 1321, 1346, 2183, 2185-2192, 2194, 2705-2706, 2721, 2736, 

2740-2742, 2746-2747, 3740-3746, 3755, 3913, 4670-4672, 5085, CoreCivic 31-36, CoreCivic 

62, CoreCivic 3-8, CoreCivic 11-21, CoreCivic 23-28, STGi 14-15, 7432, 7490-7492, GEO 

Group 771-772, 8178, 8180, 8730-8731, 8733-8734, 9151-9153, 9201, 9382-9383, 9445, 

CoreCivic 122, CoreCivic 127, CoreCivic 143-145, 9437-9538, 10428, 10602-10603, 10607-

10608, 10616, 11087, 11090, and 11093) information protected by FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E). 

Specifically, ICE has asserted FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to protect from disclosure information 

regarding specific security measures for detention officers regarding hold rooms, armed 

transportation and managing the keys and locks at detention facilities; the use and storage of 

firearms and body armor; internal ICE accounting information; detention facility schematics 

showing the layout including ingress/egress locations, proximity of guard stations and security 

surveillance of areas within a detention facility; staffing plan by shift for security operations at 

detention facilities, and schedules and routes for busing detainees between facilities; schedules 

for perimeter surveillance, procedures regarding detainee use of certain tools, and the frequency 

and schedule for detainee counts. 

121. The release of this information could reasonably be expected to reveal where the 

detention facility would be most vulnerable to efforts to avoid detection and apprehension when 

organizing an escape or disturbance, and how to frustrate or thwart security measures or 

procedures to prevent or quell such incidents. Public awareness of this operational information 

would aid those seeking to gain unauthorized entry to the detention facility holding ICE 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 70 of 138 PageID #:440
47 

detainees, as they would readily know the detention facility’s layout and security staffing and 

security related procedures, which could be exploited to overrun and gain unauthorized entry to 

the facility or frustrate security measures while transporting ICE detainees. Disclosing ICE 

internal accounting information could allow unauthorized access to those accounts. 

122. Specifically with regard to the detention site schematics which were part of 

contract documents but not themselves substantively responsive to the FOIA requests, ICE 

asserted FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) because, while the public may generally know that detention 

facilities house ICE detainees and those facilities include various rooms such as offices, holding 

cells, sally ports, armories, guard stations, for examples, the public does not know the exact 

layout of the facilities. If the exact layouts were publicly known, plans and countermeasures 

could be developed to frustrate security measures at the facilities or while transporting detainees, 

thus undermining the integrity of ongoing security and operational plans at the facilities, and 

potentially compromising facility staff and detainee safety. 

VIII. SEGREGABILITY 

123. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) requires that “[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record 

shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are 

exempt.” 

124. ICE conducted a line-by-line review to identify information exempt from 

disclosure or for which a discretionary waiver of exemption could be applied. 

125. With respect to the records at issue that were released, all information not 

exempted from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions specified above was correctly 

segregated and non-exempt portions were released. ICE did not withhold any non-exempt 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 71 of 138 PageID #:441
48 

information on the grounds that it was non-segregable. 

JURAT CLAUSE 

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

forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Signed this ___ day of April 2024. 

____________________________________ 

 Fernando Pineiro, FOIA Director 

Freedom of Information Act Office 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

500 12th Street, S.W., Stop 5009 

Washington, DC 20536-5009 

FERNANDO 

PINEIRO JR

Digitally signed by 

FERNANDO PINEIRO JR 

Date: 2024.05.01 10:59:42 

-04'00'

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 72 of 138 PageID #:442
Exhibit B

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 73 of 138 PageID #:443
Release #

Production Date

Bates #s

Page 

Count

Page Count

Released in 

Full

Page Count

Partially

Withheld

Page Count

Withheld in 

Full

Page Count 

in Vaughn

Sampling

Exemptions 

Applied 

1

st Interim

10/7/2020

1-523

5231 340 182 0 4 5,7E

2

nd Interim

11/24/2020

524-1033

510 234 276 0 9 3,5,6,7C,7E

3

rd Interim

1/19/2021

1034-1274

241 +

3 

excels

20 +

3 excels

221 0 1 5,6,7C,7E

4

th Interim

1/27/2021

1275-1705

431 0 431 0 40 4,5,6,7C,7E

5

th Interim

4/7/2021

1706-2205

500 438 62 0 58 4,5,6,7C,7E

6

th Interim

5/21/2021

2206-2702

497 492 5 0 0 6,7C

7

th Interim

7/1/2021

2703-3228

526 340 186 0 51 6,7C,7E

8

th Interim

8/26/2021

3229-3863

635 166 469 0 19 4,5,6,7C,7E

9

th Interim

10/19/2021

3864-4384

521 192 329 0 24 4,5,6,7C,7E

10th Interim

11/5/2021

4385-4900

516 295 221 0 13 4,5,6,7C,7E

11th Interim

1/20/2022

4901-5306

406 268 138 0 9 4,5,6,7C,7E

12th Interim

1/20/2022

5307-5806

500 498 2 0 0 6,7C

13th Interim

2/11/2022

CoreCivic 1-108

108 7 101 0 23 4,6,7C,7E

1 10/7/2020 release cover letter erroneously indicates 522 pages.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 74 of 138 PageID #:444
Release #

Production Date

Bates #s

Page 

Count

Page Count

Released in 

Full

Page Count 

Partially 

Withheld

Page Count 

Withheld in 

Full

Page Count 

in Vaughn

Sampling

Exemptions 

Applied

14th Interim

4/8/2022

5807-6050, 

STGi 1-11

255 220 35 0 0 4,6,7C,7E

15th Interim

4/15/2022

GEO Group 1-273

273 78 195 0 35 4,6,7C,7E

16th Interim

4/25/2022

6051-6603

553 548 5 0 0 6,7C

17th Interim

5/24/2022

6604-7042

439 423 16 0 0 6,7C,7E

18th Interim

6/17/2022

7043-7424, 

STGi 12-83

454 361 93 0 7 4

2

,6,7C,7E

19th Interim

6/27/2022

GEO 274-385

112 0 112 0 0 4,6,7C,7E

20th Interim

8/19/2022

7425-7583

1723 140 32 0 9 4,6,7C,7E

21st Interim

9/1/2022

7584-8079

496 494 2 0 0 6,7C

22nd Interim

9/20/2022

GEO 386-918

528 21 507 0 15 4,6,7C,7E

23rd Interim

10/20/2022

8080-8728

649 535 114 0 15 4,6,7C,7E

24th Interim

11/1/2022

8729-9201

473 204 269 0 12 4,6,7C,7E

25th Interim

12/19/2022

9202-9497,

CoreCivic 109-

264

452 277 175 0 11 4,6,7C,7E

2 18 interim release letter omitted that Exemption (b)(4) was also applied.

3 20th interim release letter enclosure page count omitted the STGi page count; total pages released was 172.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 75 of 138 PageID #:445
Release #

Production Date

Bates #s

Page 

Count

Page Count 

Released in 

Full

Page Count 

Partially 

Withheld

Page Count 

Withheld in 

Full

Page Count 

in Vaughn

Sampling

Exemptions 

Applied

26th Interim

1/20/2023

9498-10316

819 346 43 0 9 4,6,7C,7E

27th Interim

2/21/2023

10317-11085

769 430 339 0 34 4,6,7C,7E

28th Interim

3/22/2023

11086-11886

801 349 452 0 8 4,6,7C,7E

29th Interim

(Supplemental)

7/17/2023

11887-11893

7 3 4 0 0 6,7C

30th Interim

(Supplemental)

8/28/2023

No Bates

6 

excels

3 3 0 0 6,7C,7E

31st Interim 

9/6/2023

Reprocessed pages

w/orig. Bates #s

199 77 122 0 199 4,6,7C,7E

32nd Interim

(Supplemental)

9/19/2023

11894-11963

70 46 24 0 0 6,7C,7E

33rd Interim

(Supplemental)

11964-11971

8 + 

1 excel

0 8 0 0 3,6,7C,7E

34th Interim

(Supplemental)

11/22/2023

11972-12238

267 +

4 

excels

79 +

4 excels

188 0 15 5,6,7C,7E

35th Interim

(Supplemental)

4/10/2024

12239-12253

15 10 5 0 0 6,7C

36th Interim

(Supplemental)

4/30/2024

169 93 76 0 0 5,6,7C,7E

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 76 of 138 PageID #:446
Exhibit C

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 77 of 138 PageID #:447
Page | 1

Interim Release

Number and

Bates Stamp

Page Numbers or 

Description

Extent

Withheld

Description of Records and Redactions, and Reasons for Redactions Exemption(s)

Applied

1

st Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1 to 5

Partial Document: ICE emails to/from U.S. Marshal Services, Prisoner 

Operations Division, Office of Detention Services, Intergovernmental 

Agreement Branch and ICE Office of Acquisition Management Contract 

Specialists dated July 22, 2015 to March 8, 2019, re the County charging 

detainees for copies of their medical records in re U.S. Marshal Services 

Agreement # 89-00-0133 re Kenosha County Jail.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 1-5 to the names of ICE employees, such as ICE Contractors and 

ICE Health Unit Members who are federal employees, and third party 

senders and receivers of the emails who are United States Marshal 

Service (USMS) employees, also federal employees, from the 

Intergovernmental Agreement Branch and ICE Contract Specialist, 

including their email addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers. Note: 

ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these redactions 

to reveal the email domain names and the area codes and first 3 digits of 

the telephone numbers.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the personally identifiable information (PII) of ICE personnel in these 

records, which were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could 

reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to 

harassment and annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their 

private lives; (2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law 

enforcement investigations may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge; and (3) possibly minimizing their ability to 

effectively conduct future investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves 

no public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how 

the agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the 

privacy interest in this PII outweighs any minimal public interest that 

could possibly exist in the disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties, such as the USMS personnel, who have not 

provided consent, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting USMS personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives, and (2) 

potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the individuals named in the 

records sought, ICE cannot release those records to any member of the 

public. Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the 

mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law 

enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy 

interests of the individuals in the records requested outweigh any 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 78 of 138 PageID #:448
Page | 2

minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. Such 

disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities of the 

government.

Additional Note: ICE lifted the (b)(5) redactions previously applied to 

pgs. 2, 3 and 5, where the USMS and ICE email parties were discussing

whether there was a practice at Kenosha County Jail of charging 

detainees for copies of medical records and discussing what the practice 

may be at other detention facilities, and whether the County was 

charging all inmates or just the ICE inmates.

1

st Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 481

Partial Document: National Detention Standards Inspection Worksheet for Over 

72 Hour Facilities, Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities-Reviewer Summary, 

Completion Date: January 12, 2017.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to 

information on pg. 481 related to security measures when officers enter 

the hold rooms.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information 

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures, such as security measures for 

detention officers. This information describes the type of security 

measures and/or techniques the detention facilities has implemented,

such as what is done to inspect detainees arriving or whether or not 

officers carry firearms or other non-deadly force devices into the hold 

room, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk 

circumvention of the law by bad actors in facilitating escape from the 

detention facility or harming detention officers. The disclosure of this 

information serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in 

understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory 

responsibilities.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(7)(E)

2

nd Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 524 to 530

Partial Documents: Annual Detention Inspection of the Butler County Jail, 

February 2018. .

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redaction: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. 524, 526-527 and 530 to the names of ICE Enforcement and Removal 

Operations (ERO) Assistant Director for Detention Management, a federal 

employee, and The Nakamoto Group Lead Compliance Inspector and 

Nakamoto Group team members’ names, who are private third parties.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of the 

PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 79 of 138 PageID #:449
Page | 3

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to non-public facing third parties who have not provided 

consent, such as the Nakamoto Group personnel and the CFG Health 

Network nurses and doctors, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting the Nakamoto Group and CFG 

Health Network personnel to harassment and annoyance in conducting 

their official duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing 

them in danger as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel 

for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without 

explicit consent of the Nakamoto Group and CFG Health Network 

personnel and non-public facing ICE detainee patients named in the 

records sought, ICE cannot release those records to any member of the 

public. Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the 

mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law 

enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy 

interests of the individuals in the records requested outweigh any 

minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. Such 

disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities of the 

government.

(b)(7)(E) Redaction: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to information 

on pg. 527 related to facility staffing level for security and related support 

staff. 

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures, such as security staffing levels 

for detention facilities, the disclosure of which could reasonably reveal a 

vulnerability to being overrun by detainees and/or detainees in concert 

with non-detainees who enter the facility to facilitate escape or other 

disturbance, and potentially compromise facility staff and detainee safety 

or undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE detainees. 

The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and would not 

assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its 

statutory responsibilities. Note: ICE reprocessed pg. 527 to lift the 

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction to the contract number. Upon litigation review, 

ICE would also lift the (b)(4) redaction on pg. 527 to the basic rate per 

man day in Box F, which is $58.78, as that information has been publicly 

released in the Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) between 

ICE and Butler County OH. There were no redactions applied to pgs. 525

or 528-529.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 80 of 138 PageID #:450
Page | 4

2

nd Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 806 to 808

Partial CFG Health Network, Hudson County Corrections & Rehabilitation Center 

(aka Hudson County Jail) email dated August 28, 2018, re health updates 

for ICE detainees.

(b)(3) Redaction: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(3) on pg. 807 to the 

health update entry dated August 28, 2018 at 10:29 p.m. related to a 

certain ICE detainee because a confidentiality statute prohibits the 

agency from disclosing any information regarding this individual without 

the subject’s consent.

Reason: All information related to the ICE detainee was withheld 

pursuant to FOIA Exemption (b)(3) which permits an agency to withhold 

records “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided 

that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the 

public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) 

establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types 

of matters to be withheld.” In this case, the unspecified statute that 

applies to these withholdings explicitly prohibits the disclosure of any 

information pertaining to the protected individual, except pursuant to 

exceptions not applicable here. The agency is unable to identify the 

applicable statute because doing so would circumvent the confidentiality 

protections the statute is intended to establish.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)

on pages 806-808 to the name, email and phone number of the CFG 

Health Network Acting Health Service Administrator for the Hudson 

County Jail, a doctor and ICE detainee patients identified in the ICE 

medical updates, who are private third parties, and to the names of the

ERO Detention Service Manager and ERO Officers from ERO’s Newark 

Field Office, who are federal employees, all of whom have not signed a 

privacy waiver in this case.

Reason: FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to non-public facing third parties who have not provided 

consent, such as the CFG Health Network Acting Health Service 

Administrator and the doctor, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these individuals to harassment 

and annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their private lives, 

and (2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement 

may begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the CFG Health Network Acting 

Health Service Administrator, doctor and the non-public facing ICE 

detainee patients named in the records sought, ICE cannot release those 

records to any member of the public. As to the ICE detainee patients, not 

only would it be an unwarranted invasion of privacy in disclosing their 

health care information, but as to both the ICE detainee patients and CFG 

Health Systems employees, members of the public may draw adverse 

inferences from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files 

of a criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown 

how the privacy interests of the individuals in the records requested 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(3), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 81 of 138 PageID #:451
Page | 5

outweigh any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. 

Such disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities 

of the government.

Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of the PII of 

non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were compiled 

for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected to 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

2

nd Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 846 to 854

Partial Document: Emails from March 2018 and October 2018 between ICE IHSC

Commanders, Field Medical Coordinators in New York and Houston Field 

Offices, Hudson County Department of Corrections Scheduler and CFG 

Health Systems Regional Managers regarding 

handling medical care of ICE detainees.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 846-854 to the names of the ICE personnel, who are federal 

employees; the Hudson County and CFG Health Systems employees in

these email strings, including their email addresses, telephone and 

facsimile numbers, and the names of ICE detainee patients, who are 

private third parties, all of whom have not signed a privacy waiver in this 

case. Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift the 

redactions to reveal the email domain names and the area codes and first 

3 digits of the telephone numbers.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 82 of 138 PageID #:452
Page | 6

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing CFG Health Systems employees to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these 

individuals to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the CFG Health Systems employees and the ICE detainee patients named 

in the records sought, ICE cannot release those records to any member 

of the public. As to the ICE detainee patients, not only would it be an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy in disclosing their health care 

information, but as to both the ICE detainee patients and CFG Health 

Systems employees, members of the public may draw adverse inferences 

from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files of a 

criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how 

the privacy interests of the individuals in the records requested outweigh 

any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. Such 

disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities of the 

government.

3

rd Release

(No Bates No.)

Excel 

03.04_P00014

None Document: Excel 03.04_P0014, Attachment A – Family Facilities – Berks 

Detailed Cost-Redacted – a comparison of then current cost elements for 

detention services and programs and estimated costs after expansion of 

the facility.

(b)(4),(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(4) to costs 

for dental care dated 2017, educational services dated 2015, and a onetime expansion cost dated 2014, which items are provided by third party 

private entities related to housing ICE detainees at the Berks County 

Family Residential Center. Exemption (b)(4) was also applied to detention 

rates and annual fixed costs though there is no indication these costs are 

attributed to a private contractor, and to the voluntary work rate for ICE 

detainees which is set by Congress. Exemption (b)(7)(E) was 

inadvertently applied to portions of the excel spreadsheet which would 

not apply. 

Reason for the (b)(4) Redactions: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to 

withhold Berks County pricing that, at least in part, contains 

subcontractor pricing for items such as dental services by private doctors 

and educational services provided by Berks County Intermediate Unit 

(BCIU), a private company that offers alternative and special educational 

services to public and private schools and other human service 

organizations in Berks County, such as the Berks County residential 

detention facility. Such pricing information is confidential and proprietary 

to these private entities. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information obtained from a company that is 

privileged or confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been 

interpreted very broadly to encompass any information in which the 

submitter has a commercial interest and that generally pertains to 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(4)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 83 of 138 PageID #:453
Page | 7

commerce. To qualify as confidential, financial/commercial information 

must be both customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to 

the government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

The doctors providing dental services and BCIU providing educational 

services to ICE detainees are for-profit private entities which partner with 

ICE via subcontracts with cities or counties contracting directly with ICE 

to provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

they go through their immigration process. Such private entities 

compete for the awards of subcontracts with Berks County to provide 

such services to ICE detainees, and have a clear commercial interest in 

maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. Such private 

entities customarily treat the pricing structure of their contracts as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

information contained in detention service contracts belonging to a 

private, for-profit entities, to the public. Note: Given that the detention 

rates and annual fixed costs appear to be provided by the County, and 

not a private contractor, and because the VWP rate is capped by 

Congress, ICE would lift those redactions; also, given the age of the 

pricing information related to dental care and educational costs, ICE 

would agree to lift the (b)(4) redactions as a matter of discretion, 

however, the ICE FOIA Office in concert with ERO were unable to locate a 

clean copy of the Excel spreadsheet.

3

rd Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 1040

Partial Document: Email dated October 4 and 5, 2018, between Correct Care 

Solutions Registered Nurse and ICE IHSC Commander, Field Medical 

Coordinator for New York City re ICE detainee patients at Hudson County 

Jail being sent out for emergency room treatment and returned, with

medical status updates.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pg. 1040 to the names of the ICE personnel, who are federal 

employees, and Correct Care Solutions personnel, who are private third 

parties, including their email addresses, telephone and facsimile 

numbers, as well as the names of ICE detainee patients, also private third 

parties, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this case. Note: ICE has 

reprocessed pg. 1040 to partially lift some of the redactions to reveal the 

email domain names and the area codes and first 3 digits of the 

telephone numbers.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 84 of 138 PageID #:454
Page | 8

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing Correct Care Solutions employees to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these 

individuals to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the Correct Care Solutions employees and the ICE detainee patients

named in the records sought, ICE cannot release those records to any 

member of the public. As to the ICE detainee patients, not only would it 

be an unwarranted invasion of privacy in disclosing their health care 

information, but as to both the ICE detainee patients and Correct Care 

Solutions employees, members of the public may draw adverse 

inferences from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files 

of a criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown 

how the privacy interests of the individuals in the records requested 

outweigh any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. 

Such disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities 

of the government.

4

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1306 to 

1315, 1322 to 

1342, 1343 to 

1350, and 1482

to 1483

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation / Modification of Contract 

70CDCR18C00000003, Modification (“Mod.”) No. P00003 between ICE 

and STG International Inc. dated February 2018 and signed June 2018 to 

release suspension of performance; Mod. No. P00004 signed August 1, 

2018, assigning contracting officer reps., incorporating regs. and adding

detention locations; Mod. No. P00005 signed September 4, 2018, to 

incorporate wage determinations, regs., and IHSC’s instructions, and 

approving a 30-day extension on non-critical vacancies on the contract; 

Section G –Contract Administration Data (attachment to Contract 

between ICE and STG International).

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. 1308-1315, 

and pgs. 1347-1350 to proposed cost information submitted by 

contractor STG International Inc.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold STG 

International’s pricing that is confidential and proprietary to the 

company. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. STG 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4),

(b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 85 of 138 PageID #:455
Page | 9

International is a for-profit private national firm which specializes in the 

areas of healthcare services, social services, training services and facility 

management on government contracts at the federal, state and local 

level, which competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services to ICE detainees. The company has a clear commercial interest 

in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. STG 

International customarily treats the pricing structure of their contracts as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

information, belonging toa private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 1306, 1307, 1343, 1344, and 1482 to the names of ICE Office of 

Acquisition Contracting Officer and Administrative Contracting Officer, 

and the IHSC Lt. Commander and Captain serving as Contracting Officers, 

including their email addresses and telephone numbers, who have not 

signed a privacy waiver in this case. 

Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these 

redactions to reveal the email domain names and the area codes and first 

3 digits of the telephone numbers. Upon further litigation review, ICE 

would also lift the redaction on pgs. 1306, to the name of the President 

and CEO of STG International, Michelle S. Lee, as a public facing 

individual.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to internal ICE 

Accounting Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on 

pgs. 1307, 1321 and 1346. Note: ICE also inadvertently applied this 

exemption to the contract numbers/purchase order numbers on pgs. 

1306, 1308-1315, and 1343-1346, and has reprocessed those pages to lift 

those exemptions.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 86 of 138 PageID #:456
Page | 10

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

Additional Note: ICE has determined that pgs. 1322-1338 red-lined 

modified contract provisions were incorporated into the ICE contract 

with STG International Inc. and therefore reprocessed these pages to be 

released in full. ICE has also reprocessed pgs. 1339-1342 to lift the (b)(5) 

redaction in full and to partially release these pages with the (b)(4) 

redactions for STG International costs information for the reason 

referenced above.

5

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1786 to 

1789

Partial Document: Attachment to Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of 

Contract 70CDCR18C00000003, Mod. No. P00006 between ICE and STG 

International Inc. dated February 2018 and signed September 2018, 

containing STG International bill rates.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. 1786-1789 

to proposed cost information submitted by contractor STG International 

Inc.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold STG 

International’s pricing that is confidential and proprietary to the 

company. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. STG 

International is a for-profit private national firm which specializes in the 

areas of healthcare services, social services, training services and facility 

management on government contracts at the federal, state and local 

level, which competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services to ICE detainees. The company has a clear commercial interest 

in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. STG 

International customarily treats the pricing structure of their contracts as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

information, belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(4)

5

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1790 to 

1795

None Document: Attachment J-2 to Amendment of Solicitation/Modification 

of Contract 70CDCR18C00000003, Mod. No. P00006 between ICE and 

STG International Inc. dated February 2018 and signed September 2018, 

containing Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) with red-lined 

modifications.

Note: ICE previously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to withhold most of 

the content of pgs. 1790-1794 which appeared to be deliberative process 

N/A

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 87 of 138 PageID #:457
Page | 11

drafts of a QASP associated with the contract provisions. (There were no 

redactions on pg. 1795.) ICE has determined that pgs. 1790-1794 with 

the red-lined modifications were incorporated into the ICE contract with 

STG International Inc. and therefore reprocessed these pages to be 

released in full.

5

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1809 and 

1836

Partial Document: IHSC Captain/Contracting Officer’s Representative for Health 

Operations Unit of IHSC emails dated June 2018 and July 2018 to ICE OAQ

Contract Specialist and signatory re Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract 70CDCR18C00000003 re position 

descriptions (“PDs”) that had been changed since the Request for 

Proposal (“RFP”) was released. 

b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 1809 and 1836 to the names of ICE contract representatives and 

signatories to the contracts, and IHSC employees’ names and telephone 

numbers, federal employees, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this 

case. 

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Note: ICE previously erroneously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to 

withhold from these emails the ICE IHSC Contracting Officer

Representative’s statement regarding the extent of his authorization to 

modify the contract. ICE reprocessed pgs. 1809 and 1836 lifting those 

redactions.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

5

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 1917 to 

1926, 1930, 1933

to 1937, and 

1970

None Document: Sections C and G Attachments to Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract 70CDCR18C00000003, Modification 

No. P00006 between ICE and STG International Inc. dated February 2018 

and signed September 2018, with red-lined modifications to C-20 re 

Security Requirements, C-26 re Time Clock, C-33 re IHSC Invoicing and G4 re Invoices/Payments.

Note: ICE previously erroneously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to 

withhold some or all of the content of pgs. 1917-1926, 1930, 1933-1937 

N/A

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 88 of 138 PageID #:458
Page | 12

and 1970 which appeared to be deliberative process drafts of contract 

provisions but were actually incorporated into the contract; ICE also 

previously erroneously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

1970 to an ICE email address for processing contract-related invoices. ICE

reprocessed all of these pages to be released in full.

5

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 2008 to 

2012, 2047 to 

2056, and 2182

to 2194

Partial Documents: Pgs. 2008-2012 are portions of Attachment J-1 QASP 

Amendment 13 to Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract –

no redactions were made. Pgs. 2047-2056 are emails between ICE ERO 

Acting Deputy Executive Associate Director Enrique Lucero and IHSC

Captain and Contracting Officer’s Representative for the Resource 

Management Unit, and IHSC Assistant Director, dated December 2019 to 

January 2020, discussing contract modifications related to ICE’s contract 

with STG International Inc. for healthcare services for ICE detainees. Pgs. 

2182-2194 are draft Mod. Nos. PO00012 and PO00013 to Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract 70CDCR18C00000003 between ICE 

and STG International Inc. - no redactions were made to pg. 2182.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) to pg. 2056 to 

medical assistant bill rates submitted by STG International in their 

proposal to ICE contained in the text of an email message; to pg. 2183 to 

the net increase in contract cost by the modification to the contract, to 

pgs. 2185 to 2190 and pgs. 2192-2194 to similar cost increase 

information and total contract value for medical staffing to be provided 

by STG International.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold STG 

International’s pricing that is confidential and proprietary to the 

company. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. STG 

International is a for-profit private national firm which specializes in the 

areas of healthcare services, social services, training services and facility 

management on government contracts at the federal, state and local 

level, which competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services to ICE detainees. The company has a clear commercial interest 

in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. STG 

International customarily treats the pricing structure of their contracts as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

information, belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 2047-2056 to the names of ICE personnel in the email strings,

and on pgs. 2183-2184, and 2188-2189 to the ICE Office of Acquisition 

Management and IHSC Contracting Officer’s Representatives, in the

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C),

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 89 of 138 PageID #:459
Page | 13

contract modifications, including their email addresses and telephone 

numbers, all of whom are federal employees and have not signed a 

privacy waiver in this case. 

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Note: ICE previously erroneously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) on pgs. 

2047-2056 to contents of the email messages between ERO personnel 

identified by name and/or title above regarding bill rates for new medical

assistant position required under contract with STG International, the 

extent of coverage of inmates at certain detention sites under the 

contract that were factual rather than deliberative, including the ICE IHSC 

contracting officer representative’s statement regarding the extent of his 

authorization to modify the contract. ICE has reprocessed those pages 

to lift the (b)(5) redactions but applied Exemption (b)(4) on pg. 2056 to 

bill rates for the new medical assistant positions submitted by STG 

International as justified above.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to ICE 

Accounting Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on 

pgs. 2183, 2185-2192, and 2194.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 2704 to 

2707, 2718,

2721, 2736, 2739

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation / Modification of Contract re 

DROIGSA-10-0003 70CDCR18FIGR00271, Mod. No. P00002 dated June 

19, 2018, to provide additional funding for detention services for ICE 

detainees at Berks County facility under Intergovernmental Service 

Agreement DROIGSA-10-0003; Order for Supplies or Services dated June 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4), 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 90 of 138 PageID #:460
Page | 14

to 2742, and 

2744 to 2747

19, 2018, re same; Mod. No. P00007 dated June 19, 2018, to de-obligate

excess funding re same and close out order re same; Mod. No. P00001

dated June 19, 2018, to provide additional funding for detention services 

for ICE detainees at Berks County re same; DROIGSA-10-0003 

70CDCR19FIGR00249, Mod. No. P00001 dated June 20, 2019, to provide 

funding for certain contract line item numbers (CLINs) re bed space, 

education, the detainee voluntary work program, and dental costs.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pricing information 

such as funding increases on contract line items (CLINs), costs per 

person/day, and hourly rates for detention-related services on pgs. 2704-

2707, 2721, 2736, 2739-2742, 2744-2747.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold Berks County

pricing that, at least in part, contains subcontractor pricing for items such 

as dental services by private doctors and educational services provided 

by Berks County Intermediate Unit (BCIU), a private company that offers 

alternative and special educational services to public and private schools

and other human service organizations in Berks County, such as the Berks 

County residential detention facility. Such pricing information is 

confidential and proprietary to these private entities. FOIA Exemption 4 

protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained 

from a company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

express or implied assurance of privacy. The doctors providing dental 

services and BCIU providing educational services to ICE detainees are forprofit private entities which partner with ICE via subcontracts with cities 

or counties contracting directly with ICE to provide safe environments 

where detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their 

immigration process. Such private entities compete for the awards of 

subcontracts with Berks County to provide such servicesto ICE detainees, 

and have a clear commercial interest in maintaining competitive pricing 

to win contract awards. Such private entities customarily treat the pricing 

structure of their contracts as confidential. Further ICE does not 

customarily release this type of pricing information contained in 

detention service contracts belonging to a private, for-profit entities, to 

the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pgs. 2704, 2718, 2739, and 2744 to the names of ICE ERO Detention 

Compliance & Removal Officers and IHSC Contract Officer 

Representatives, both federal employees, who signed the contract and 

orders for supplies, including their email addresses and telephone 

numbers, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this case. 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C),

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 91 of 138 PageID #:461
Page | 15

Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these

redactions to reveal the email domain names and the area codes and first 

3 digits of the telephone numbers.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to ICE 

Accounting Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on 

pgs. 2705-2706, 2721, 2736, 2740-2742, and 2746-2747.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

Additional note: ICE previously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) in 

addition to Exemption (b)(4) to the pricing information on these pages as

law enforcement techniques and procedures. ICE reprocessed these 

pages to lift the (b)(7)(E) exemption designation.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 2803

Partial Document: DROIGSA-09-0027 Intergovernmental Service Agreement 

between ICE and Berks County, PA signed August 6, 2009, to provide 

detentions services for residents/detainees at Berks County Institution at 

Leesport, PA.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pg. 2803 to the name of the ICE Contracting Officer who signed the 

contract. Note: ICE reprocessed this page to lift the redaction to the name 

of the Chairman, Board of Commissioners of Berks County as a public

facing individual at the time of being a signatory to the contract.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 92 of 138 PageID #:462
Page | 16

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 2913,

2918, 2932,

2938-2939, and 

2980

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract

DROIGSA-10-0003, between ICE and Berks County, PA, Mod. No. P00001

dated March 30, 2010, signed February 1, 2012; Mod. No. P00002 dated 

March 30, 2010, signed May 15, 2013; Mod. No. P00007 dated March 30, 

2010, signed January 16, 2014; Mod. No. P00009 dated March 30, 2010, 

signed June 24, 2015; Attachment A to Mod. P00023 dated August 1, 

2019.

Note: ICE previously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) on each of these 

pgs. to costs and funding information; upon litigation review, ICE 

reprocessed these pages to lift that redaction designation. ICE also 

previously applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) to Berks County Youth Center 

costs, education costs for detainees, the Voluntary Work Program rate,

and total current costs figures on these pages. Upon litigation review

given the remote dates of these cost items, and that the Voluntary Work 

Program rate the government can pay is capped by Congress, ICE 

reprocessed each of these pages to lift the (b)(4) redaction to those 

items.

N/A

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3030 to 

3034, 3049, and 

3051 to 3053

Partial Documents: Emails dated February 2018 to July 2018 between ICE IHSC

Deputy Assistant Director for Health Systems Support and ICE Contract 

Specialists and Berks County Fiscal Operations Manager re dental rate 

increase among other cost-related modifications re Contract No. 

DROIGSA-10-0003 for the Berks County Family Residential Center 

(detention facility).

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

each of these pages to the names of ICE IHSC Deputy Assistant Director

and ICE Contract Specialist, both federal employees, and Berks County

Fiscal Operations Manager, a third party, who have not signed a privacy 

waiver in this case. Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially 

lift some of these redactions to reveal the email domain names.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 93 of 138 PageID #:463
Page | 17

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing Berks County Fiscal Operations Manager, to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting this

individual to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the Berks County employee, ICE cannot release those records to any 

member of the public. Members of the public may draw adverse 

inferences from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files 

of a criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown 

how the privacy interests of the individuals in the records requested 

outweigh any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. 

Such disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities 

of the government.

Additional note: ICE previously applied Exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(5) to 

contents of emails on pgs. 3030-3034, (b)(5) on pg. 3049, and (b)(4),(b)

(5) between ICE and Berks County contract representatives, and (b)(7)(E)

on pg. 3052 to the County CFO’s comments re certain proposed shortfall 

language in the contract modification with ICE. Upon litigation review, as 

a matter of discretion, ICE has reprocessed these records to lift these 

redactions.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3063 to 

3065

Partial Documents: Emails dated March 2018 between ICE Section Chief for 

Detention, Compliance & Removals (DCR) and non-profit organization 

Abraxas Youth & Family Services Divisional Director re Berks County 

detention facility bed space and rate increases.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

each of these pages to the names of the ICE Section Chief for DCR, a 

federal employee and Abraxas Divisional Director, a private third party,

who have not signed a privacy waiver in this case. Note: ICE has 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 94 of 138 PageID #:464
Page | 18

reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these redactions to 

reveal the email domain names.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing Abraxas Divisional Director, to prevent an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting this individual to 

harassment and annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their 

private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law 

enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and 

seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of the Berks County 

employee, ICE cannot release those records to any member of the public.

Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the mere fact 

that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law enforcement 

agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy interests of 

the individuals in the records requested outweigh any minimal public 

interest in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would also 

not shed light on the operations or activities of the government.

Additional note: ICE reprocessed pgs. 3063-3065 to lift the (b)(5) 

redactions from email content related to bed space negotiations given 

the remote dates of the emails and that the content is more factual than 

deliberative.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3067 and

3070 to 3074

Partial Documents: Group Home/Institutional Facilities Title IV-E / Act 148 

Maximum Allowable Reimbursement Budget Documentation for FY

2017/18 re Abraxas Academy

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. 3067 to the names, email addresses and phone numbers for the 

Abraxas Divisional Vice President and Director of Financial Operation,

private third parties, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this case. 

Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these 

redactions to reveal the email domain names on pg. 3067 and the staff 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 95 of 138 PageID #:465
Page | 19

identification numbers on pgs. 3070-3071 for institutional facility staff 

positions.

Reason: FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing Abraxas employees, to prevent an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting this individual to 

harassment and annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their 

private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law 

enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and 

seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of the Abraxas

employee, ICE cannot release those records to any member of the public.

Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the mere fact 

that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law enforcement 

agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy interests of 

the individuals in the records requested outweigh any minimal public 

interest in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would also 

not shed light on the operations or activities of the government.

Additional note: ICE reprocessed pgs. 3070-3074 to lift all (b)(4),(b)(5) 

redactions as these documents are part of the Title IV-E audit review by 

a federal revenue source for this non-profit agency and are neither 

confidential nor deliberative.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3086 to 

3090

Partial Document: Draft letter dated November 30, 2011, from ICE contracting 

officer to Berks County Chief Financial Officer re Berks County’s proposed 

prices and terms and conditions for relocating the Family Residential

Program from the Old Heim building to the CRC building.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and 

(b)(7)(C) on pg. 3090 to the name of the ICE Office of Acquisition 

Management Contracting Officer, a federal employee, who has not 

provided a privacy waiver in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 96 of 138 PageID #:466
Page | 20

Note: ICE previously withheld these pages in full under FOIA Exemption 

(b)(5) as the contents are a draft ICE counteroffer to Berks County that 

were deliberative in nature regarding pricing and terms and conditions. 

However, upon litigation review, given the remote date of the draft letter,

publicly available information on the current location of the Family 

Residential Program at the Berks County CRC building, as a matter of 

discretion, ICE reprocessed these pages to lift the withhold in full 

redaction under (b)(5); ICE applied a partial redaction under 

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to pg. 3090 as mentioned above.

7

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3169, 3208

and 3212 to 3216

Partial Document: May 2018 emails among ICE Office of Acquisition 

Management DCR Section Chief and ICE ERO’s Contracting Officer 

Representative and the Fiscal Operations Manager for Berks County 

Residential Center re modifications to education subcontract related to 

2015 Berks County contract with Berks County Intermediate Unit (BCIU) 

for delivery of educational services to residents placed at the Berks 

County Residential Center; emails dated June 2015 among the Executive 

Director for the Berks County Residential Center/Family Immigration 

Program and Office of Acquisition Management DCR Contracting Officer

and staff from BCIU Office of Business Services re updates to BCIU 

contract for 2015-2016.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

each of these pages, to the names and email addresses of the ICE

personnel who are federal employees, and the names, email addresses 

and phone numbers of third party Berks County personnel and BCIU 

personnel, all of whom have not signed a privacy waiver in this case. 

Note: ICE has reprocessed these pages to partially lift some of these 

redactions to reveal the email domain names. 

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing Berks County and BCIU employees, to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting this 

individual to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 97 of 138 PageID #:467
Page | 21

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the Berks County and BCIU employees, ICE cannot release those records 

to any member of the public. Members of the public may draw adverse 

inferences from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files 

of a criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown 

how the privacy interests of the individuals in the records requested 

outweigh any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. 

Such disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities 

of the government.

Additional note: ICE previously applied (b)(4) and (b)(5) redactions to

the content of emails on pgs. 3169, 3208 and 3212-3216 related to the 

contracting personnel from Berks County, BCIU and ICE identified by titles 

above, discussing proposed modifications to the BCIU contract for 2015-

2016. Upon litigation review, given the remote dates and as a matter of 

discretion, ICE reprocessed these pages lifting these redactions. 

8

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3740 to 

3746, 3755, and 

3771

Partial Document: Schematics owned by Corrections Corporations of America 

(CCA), a private contractor, for proposed expansion for the South Texas 

Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas

(b)(4) and (b)(7)(E) Redactions: Note - Upon litigation review, ICE would 

add Exemption (b)(4) to the Exemption (b)(7)(E) applied to the parts of 

the schematics on pgs. 3740-3746 and 3755 for proposed expansion of 

the detention facility to house ICE detainee family units. The redacted 

portions of the schematics show the proposed layout of the facility and 

locations of ingress/egress and security features.

Reasons: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to partially withhold CCA’s 

schematic drawings for proposed expansion of the South Texas Family 

Residential Center that is confidential and proprietary to CCA, now 

known as CoreCivic. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information obtained from a company that is 

privileged or confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been 

interpreted very broadly to encompass any information in which the 

submitter has a commercial interest and that generally pertains to 

commerce. To qualify as confidential, financial/commercial information 

must be both customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to 

the government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

CoreCivic, is a for-profit private national firm which partners with ICE 

directly or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to 

provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

they go through their immigration process, including building and 

operating detention facilities. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE 

contracts to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial 

and proprietary interest in its schematics for build-to-suit detention 

facilities. CoreCivic customarily treats their schematics as confidential. 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 98 of 138 PageID #:468
Page | 22

Further ICE does not customarily release this type of schematics 

information belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

FOIA Exemption 7(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or 

procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. The portions of 

the schematics redacted display the layout of the planned development 

for the detention facility, including offices, holding cells, corridors, 

medical areas, types of walls, locations of exterior entries and exits, sally 

ports (which are secure locations used to transfer detainees from a 

building to a vehicle) and locations of security features, including 

perimeter fencing, surveillance, and lighting. This information could 

reasonably be expected to reveal where the detention facility would be 

most vulnerable to bad actors’ efforts to avoid detection and 

apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, and how to 

frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to prevent or quell 

such incidents. Public awareness of this operational information would 

aid those seeking to gain entry to a detention facility holding ICE 

detainees, as they would readily know the detention facility’s layout, 

which could be exploited to overrun and gain unauthorized entry to the 

facility or undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE 

detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. 

Note: There were no redactions to pg. 3771.

9

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3864 to 

3868

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract 

70CDCR18DIG000012, Mod. Nos. P00001 and P00002 dated September 

26, 2018 between ICE and the City of Dilley, TX incorporating terms and

conditions.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to pgs. 

3864, 3866, and 3868 to the names, signatures, telephone numbers,

email addresses and office suite numbers for the ICE Office of Acquisition 

Management Contracting Officer Representatives and Contracting 

Officer, federal employees, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this 

case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

Freedom of

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 99 of 138 PageID #:469
Page | 23

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Note: There were no redactions to pgs. 3865 and 3867.

9

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 3906 to 

3915

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract 

70CDCR18DIG000012, Mod. No. P00005 dated April 22, 2020, between 

ICE and the City of Dilley, TX to increase certain detention service rates

which includes a CoreCivic Inc. schematic of the South Texas Family 

Residential Center and Mod. No. P00006 to update the contracting officer 

points of contact related to the South Texas Family Residential Center 

which is operated by private detention services contractor CoreCivic Inc.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. 3907-3910 

and 3915 to cost information for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for 

detention services related to monthly rates for beds, bed day rates, 

retroactive back pay for detention services, mileage reimbursement 

rates, housekeeping/guard services, etc. Note: Upon litigation review, 

ICE would add Exemption (b)(4) to the (b)(7)(E) redaction to the CoreCivic 

schematic on pg. 3913.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold CoreCivic’s pricing 

reflected in the CLINs in the contract between ICE and the City of Dilly 

Texas and the schematic of the South Texas Family Residential Center that 

is confidential and proprietary to CoreCivic. FOIA Exemption 4 protects 

trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a 

company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

express or implied assurance of privacy. CoreCivic is a for-profit private 

national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with cities 

or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments where 

detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their immigration 

process, including building and operating detention facilities. CoreCivic

competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such services. The 

company has a clear commercial interest in maintaining competitive 

pricing to win contract awards and clear proprietary interest in its 

schematics for build-to-suit detention facilities. CoreCivic customarily 

treats the pricing structure of their contracts and their schematics as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

and schematicsinformation belonging to a private, for-profit company, to 

the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. 3906, 3911-3912, and 3914 to the names, telephone numbers, 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C),

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 100 of 138 PageID #:470
Page | 24

email addresses, office suite numbers and signatures for ICE Contracting 

Officer Representatives, Contracting Officer, Contract Specialists, and 

signatories to the contract, who are federal employees and who have 

not signed a privacy waiver in this case. 

Note: ICE reprocessed pg. 3906 to lift (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction for the 

Dilley City Administrator who was public facing.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redaction: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to pg. 3913

which is a CoreCivic detailed schematic of the South Texas Family 

Residential Center which identifiesthe proposed layout of the facility and 

locations of ingress/egress and security features.

Reason: Exemption 7(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or 

procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. The schematic 

displays the layout of various locations that comprise the detention 

facility, including offices, holding cells, corridors, medical areas, types of 

walls, locations of exterior entries and exits, locations of security 

features, including perimeter fencing, surveillance, and lighting. Part of 

ICE’s mission is to provide detention operations efficiently and effectively 

to ensure safety, security and care of noncitizens in custody while 

awaiting the outcome of their immigration proceedings. Releasing such

information could reasonably be expected to reveal where the detention 

facility would be most vulnerable to efforts by bad actors to avoid 

detection and apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, 

and how to frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to 

prevent or quell such incidents. Public awareness of this operational 

information would aid those seeking to gain entry to a detention facility 

holding ICE detainees, as they would readily know the detention facility’s 

layout, which could be exploited to overrun and gain unauthorized entry 

to the facility or undermine security measures taken while transporting 

ICE detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 101 of 138 PageID #:471
Page | 25

9

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 4119 to 

4123

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract

70CDCR19D00000001, Mod. No. P00002 dated December 4, 2018 

between ICE and The GEO Group Inc., a private detention services 

contractor, to exercise all Option Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) 

extend terms and update wage ratesrelated to the South Texas Detention 

Center in Pearsall, Texas.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. 4120-4123

to cost information for various Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 

submitted by The GEO Group (GEO) for detention-related services.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold GEO’s pricing that 

is confidential and proprietary to GEO. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade 

secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a 

company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

express or implied assurance of privacy. GEO is a for-profit private 

national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with cities 

or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments where 

detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their immigration 

process. GEO competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services. The company has a clear commercial interest in maintaining 

competitive pricing to win contract awards. GEO customarily treats the 

pricing structure of their contracts as confidential. Further ICE does not 

customarily release this type of pricing information belonging to a 

private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

4119 to the names, telephone numbers, email addresses, office suite 

numbers and signatories to the contract for the ICE Field Office POC and

Contracting Officer, who are federal employees, and GEO Group 

Executive Vice President for Contract Administration, a private third 

party, who have not signed a privacy waiver in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 102 of 138 PageID #:472
Page | 26

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

non-public facing GEO employee, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting this individual to harassment and 

annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their private lives, and 

(2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the GEO employee, ICE cannot 

release this information to any member of the public. Members of the 

public may draw adverse inferences from the mere fact that an individual 

is mentioned in the files of a criminal law enforcement agency. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy interests of the 

individual in the records requested outweigh any minimal public interest 

in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would also not shed 

light on the operations or activities of the government.

9

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 4218

None Document: Excerpt from ICE document bearing Contract No. 

70CDCR19D00000009 related to generic ICE Evaluation Factors as to 

Cost/Price.

Note: ICE reprocessed this page to lift the (b)(5),(b)(7)(E) redaction.

N/A

9

th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 4226 to 

4228

Partial Document: Attachment 12 – Subcontracting Plan Model re ICE Contract 

No. 70CDCR1900000001 with The GEO Group Inc. related to the Florence 

ICE Service Processing Center.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

4226 to the name of the ICE Contracting Officer, a federal employee, who 

has not signed a privacy waiver in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of the 

PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Note: As a matter of discretion, ICE reprocessed these pages to lift the 

(b)(4) and (b)(5) redactions on pgs. 4226-4228 to total contract values

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 103 of 138 PageID #:473
Page | 27

and what appears to be some notional dollar percentages for using small 

business concerns, etc., in the example of how to calculate the 

Subcontracting Plan Model on an attachment to a contract between ICE 

and The GEO Group Inc. for detention related services at South Texas

Detention Center dated 2018.

10th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 4658 to 

4667

None Document: Walkthrough List on Change Orders for South Texas Family 

Residential Center, Phase II Dashboard “Punch List Items” re DROIGSA06-002, Mod. No. P00013 signed April 20, 2015, between ICE and the City 

of Eloy and involving private detentions services subcontractor Creative 

Corrections of America.

Note: Upon litigation review, given the remote dates and as matter of 

discretion, ICE reprocessed these pages to lift the (b)(4), (b)(5) and 

(b)(7)(E) redactions to all of these pages.

N/A

10th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 4670 to 

4672

Partial Document: Floorplan schematics updated March 17, 2015 for Change 

Orders for South Texas Family Residential Center re DROIGSA-06-002, 

Mod. No. P00013 signed April 20, 2015 between ICE and the City of Eloy 

and owned by private detention services contractor Corrections 

Corporation of America (CCA), now known as CoreCivic, which identify 

the layout of certain portions of the facility and locations of 

ingress/egress and security features.

(b)(4) and (b)(7)(E) Redactions: Note - Upon litigation review, ICE would 

add Exemption (b)(4) to same portions of the schematics redacted under 

Exemption (b)(7)(E).

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold CCA’s schematic 

for change orders for certain areas of the South Texas Family Residential 

Center that is confidential and proprietary to CCA, now known as 

CoreCivic. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

CoreCivic is a for-profit, private national firm which partners with ICE 

directly or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to 

provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

they go through their immigration process, including building and 

operating detention facilities. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE 

contracts to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial 

interest in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards and 

clear proprietary interest in its schematics for build-to-suit detention 

facilities. CoreCivic customarily treats their schematics as confidential. 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 104 of 138 PageID #:474
Page | 28

Further ICE does not customarily release this type of schematics 

information belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE also applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) on these pages 

to portions of the CCA floorplan schematics that show the exact proposed 

layout of rooms and hallways, security features and ingress and egress of 

portions of the detention facility under plans for revision.

Reason: Exemption 7(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or 

procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. The schematic 

displays the layout of various locations that comprise the detention 

facility, including offices, holding cells, corridors, medical areas, types of 

walls, and locations of exterior entries and exits. This information could 

reasonably be expected to reveal where the detention facility would be 

most vulnerable to bad actors’ efforts to avoid detection and

apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, and how to 

frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to prevent or quell 

such incidents. Public awareness of this operational information would 

aid those seeking to gain entry to a detention facility holding ICE 

detainees, as they would readily know the detention facility’s layout, 

which could be exploited to overrun and gain unauthorized entry to the 

facility or undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE 

detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. 

11th Release

2020-ICLI-0042

Pages

4901 to 4908

Partial Document: ICE internal email dated July 30, 2014, and Attachment 4 

providing a sample draft side by side analysis of jail cost statements for 

Corrizo Springs location vs. the South Texas Family Residential Center in 

Dilley, TX.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to pg. 

4903 to the name, and phone numbers of the ICE Deportation Officer and

the names of ICE Office of Acquisition Management Contracting Officers, 

who are federal employees, and Corrections Corporation of America

(now known as CoreCivic) contracting personnel in the email, private 

third parties (whose titles are not provided), all of whom have not signed 

privacy waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 105 of 138 PageID #:475
Page | 29

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

CCA employees, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting these individualsto harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives, and (2) 

potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the CCA employees, ICE cannot 

release this information to any member of the public. Members of the 

public may draw adverse inferences from the mere fact that an individual 

is mentioned in the files of a criminal law enforcement agency. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy interests of the 

individual in the records requested outweigh any minimal public interest 

in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would also not shed 

light on the operations or activities of the government.

Note: ICE previously applied Exemption (b)(5) to pgs. 4901-4902 and 

Exemptions(b)(5) and (b)(7)(E) to pgs. 4904-4908 which consists of a side 

by side comparison of costs and the pros and cons of having a Corrizo 

Springs location vs. the South Texas Family Residential Center location for 

detention services. Upon litigation review, although the pricing 

information on pgs. 4901-4902 which involves private detention service 

contractor CCA could have been withheld under Exemption (b)(4) as 

commercial/financial information, as a matter of discretion, given the 

remote dates and old pricing information, ICE reprocessed these pages

without applying these exemptions. 

11th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 5085

Partial Document: Staffing Plan for the South Texas Family Residential Center 

dated September 8, 2014.

(b)(7)(E) Redaction: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) on pg. 5085 to the 

staff deployment by shift and position for Security Operations and Unit 

Management.

Reason: Exemption 7(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or 

procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. Releasing this 

information on the number and type of security personnel on each shift 

could reasonably be expected to reveal a vulnerability to being overrun 

by detainees and/or detainees in concert with non-detainees who enter 

the facility to facilitate escape or other disturbance and potentially 

compromising facility staff and detainee safety or undermine security 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 106 of 138 PageID #:476
Page | 30

measures taken while transporting ICE detainees. The disclosure of this 

information serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in 

understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory 

responsibilities. 

13th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages CoreCivic 1

to 16

Partial Documents: Emails dated August 19, 2014, from Corrections 

Corporation of America (CCA), now known as CoreCivic, to ICE re revised 

pricing for South Texas Family Residential Center attaching proposed 

pricing for various Contract Line Item Nos. (CLINs) for options covering 

period September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2018; Jail Services Cost 

Statement Cost Sheet for Detention Services, and Target Cost Justification

to Support Lease and Food Service Calculations.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. CoreCivic 

3-4, and CoreCivic 7-16 to cost information submitted by CCA.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold CCA’s pricing that 

is confidential and proprietary to CCA, now known as CoreCivic. FOIA 

Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or financial 

information obtained from a company that is privileged or confidential. 

The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to 

encompass any information in which the submitter has a commercial 

interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as 

confidential, financial/commercial information must be both customarily 

treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under 

either an express or implied assurance of privacy. CoreCivic is a for-profit,

private national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with 

cities or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments 

where detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their 

immigration process. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE contracts 

to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial interest 

in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. CoreCivic

customarily treats the pricing structure of their contracts as confidential. 

Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing information 

belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. CoreCivic 1 and 5 to the names, phone numbers and email addresses

of the ICE Detention Management Division, Deputy Assistant Director, a 

federal employee, and CCA Senior Director of Proposal Development, a 

private third party, who have not signed privacy waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 107 of 138 PageID #:477
Page | 31

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

CCA employee, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting these individuals to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives, and (2) 

potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the CCA employee, ICE cannot 

release this information to any member of the public. Members of the 

public may draw adverse inferences from the mere fact that an individual 

is mentioned in the files of a criminal law enforcement agency. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy interests of the 

individual in the records requested outweigh any minimal public interest 

in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would also not shed 

light on the operations or activities of the government.

Note: There were no redactions to Pgs. CoreCivic 2 or 6.

13th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages CoreCivic 

31 to 36, and 

CoreCivic 62

Partial Documents: Proposed floorplan schematics by CCA dated September 5, 

2014 for South Texas Family Residential Center which identify the layout 

of certain portions of the facility and locations of ingress/egress and 

security features.

(b)(4) and b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) and (b)(7)(E) 

to the floorplan schematics on pgs. CoreCivic 31 to 36 and CoreCivic 62, 

that show design, structural features, ingress and egress locations and 

security features.

Reasons: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold portions of CCA’s 

schematic drawings for certain areas of proposed expansion of the South 

Texas Family Residential Center that is confidential and proprietary to 

CCA, now known as CoreCivic. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information obtained from a company that 

is privileged or confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been 

interpreted very broadly to encompass any information in which the 

submitter has a commercial interest and that generally pertains to 

commerce. To qualify as confidential, financial/commercial information 

must be both customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to 

the government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

CoreCivic is a for-profit, private national firm which partners with ICE 

directly or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to 

provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 108 of 138 PageID #:478
Page | 32

they go through their immigration process, including building and 

operating detention facilities. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE 

contracts to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial

and proprietary interest in its schematics for build-to-suit detention 

facilities. CoreCivic customarily treats their schematics as confidential. 

Further ICE does not customarily release this type of schematics 

information belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

FOIA Exemption 7(E) protects records compiled for law enforcement 

purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or 

procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. The schematics

display the layout of various locations that comprise the detention 

facility, including offices, holding cells, corridors, medical areas, types of 

walls, locations of exterior entries and exits, sally ports, locations of 

security features, including perimeter fencing, surveillance, and lighting. 

This information could reasonably be expected to reveal where the 

detention facility would be most vulnerable to bad actors’ efforts to avoid 

detection and apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, 

and how to frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to 

prevent or quell such incidents. Public awareness of this operational 

information would aid those seeking to gain entry to a detention facility 

holding ICE detainees, as they would readily know the detention facility’s 

layout, which could be exploited to overrun and gain unauthorized entry 

to the facility or undermine security measures taken while transporting 

ICE detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities. 

15th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages GEO Group 

1 to 34

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

HSCEDM-11-D-00003/70CDCR19FR0000089, Mod. Nos. P00004 and 

P00005 and related Order for Supplies or Services Schedule dated 

September 11, 2019, between ICE and The GEO Group Inc. to provide 

additional funding for Detention and Transportation services at Aurora 

Contact Detention Facility.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. GEO Group 2-28 

and GEO Group 34, to obligated amounts on the task orders, discount 

terms, bed day rates, other cost items, transport service miles to be 

under fixed fee annually, and not to exceed cost amounts.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold GEO’s pricing and 

related contract items such as discount terms and transport service 

miles, that is confidential and proprietary to GEO. FOIA Exemption 4 

protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained 

from a company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 109 of 138 PageID #:479
Page | 33

express or implied assurance of privacy. GEO is a for-profit, private 

national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with cities 

or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments where 

detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their immigration 

process. GEO competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services. The company has a clear commercial interest in maintaining 

competitive pricing and terms to win contract awards. GEO customarily 

treats the pricing structure of their contracts as confidential. Further ICE 

does not customarily release this type of pricing information belonging 

to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. GEO Group 1-2, 9-10, 17-20, and GEO Group 22-23 to the names, 

phone numbers, email addresses and office suite numbers of ICE 

Contracting Officer’s Representatives and Contract Specialists, federal 

employees who have not signed privacy waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to ICE 

Accounting Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on 

pgs. GEO Group 3-8, GEO Group 11-21 and GEO Group 23-28.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

18th Release

2020-ICLI-00042 

Pages STGi 12 to 

Partial Document: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

70CDCR18C00000003, Mod. No. P00009 dated February 20, 2018 

between ICE and STG International Inc. signed February 4, 2019 to 

provide funding and clarify duties of nurse practitioner-pediatric and STG 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 110 of 138 PageID #:480
Page | 34

15 and STGi 47 to 

49

International Inc.’s IHSC staffing model and bill rates for Contract 

70CDCR18C00000003.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) on pgs. STGi 12-15 for 

cost increase for CLIN 0001 related to healthcare services and pgs. STGi 

47-49 for bill rates for healthcare providers submitted by STG 

International.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold STG 

International’s pricing information that is confidential and proprietary to 

the company. FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial 

or financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. STG 

International is a for-profit, private national firm which specializes in the 

areas of healthcare services, social services, training services and facility 

management on government contracts at the federal, state and local 

level, and which competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services to ICE detainees. The company has a clear commercial interest 

in maintaining competitive pricing to win contract awards. STG 

International customarily treats the pricing structure of their contracts as 

confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release this type of pricing 

information, belonging to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

Note: ICE reprocessed pgs. STGi 12-15 lifting the (b)(4) redactions to the 

DUNS No. on pg. STGi 12; to the Contract No., and, as a matter of 

discretion, to the total contract value, and sensitive award “PII” on pg. 

STGi 13. ICE also lifted the (b)(4) redaction to the Accounting Information

and funded amounts of $0.00 on STGi pgs. 14 and 15. 

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. STGi 12-13 to the names, phone numbers, email addresses and office 

suite numbers of ICE Contracting Officer’s Representatives and 

Contracting Officer, federal employees who have not signed privacy 

waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 111 of 138 PageID #:481
Page | 35

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information. Note: ICE lifted the (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

redaction to the name of the President and CEO of STG International as a 

public facing individual.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to Accounting 

Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on pgs. STGi 14 

-15.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

20th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 7428 to

7432, 7490 to 

7492 and 7502

Partial Document: Section C – Description/Specifications for ContractorOwned, Contractor-Operated Detention Facility in the Denver 

Metropolitan Area; Section H – Special Contract Requirements, 

subsection H-18 – Firearms/Body Armor.

(b)(7)(E) Redaction: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) on pg. 7432 to 

special security requirements for certain locations in the facility, and on 

pgs. 7490-7492 to sections delineating contract requirements for the use 

and storage of firearms, ammunition and other defensive weapons, and 

body armor.

Reason: Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects records compiled for law 

enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques 

and/or procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. Disclosing 

information regarding special security measures for certain locations in a 

detention facility and details on requirements for weapons and body 

armor used and stored at the facility could reveal where the detention 

facility would be most vulnerable to efforts by bad actors to avoid 

detection and apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, 

and how to frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to 

prevent or quell such incidents. Public awareness of this operational 

information would aid those seeking to gain unauthorized entry to or to 

escape from the detention facility holding ICE detainees, or to cause 

other disturbance and potentially compromising facility staff and 

detainee safety or undermine security measures taken while transporting 

ICE detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities. Note: ICE reprocessed Pg. 7502 

to lift the (b)(7)(E) redaction to subpart (c) regarding examples of tasks 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 112 of 138 PageID #:482
Page | 36

that require security provisions. There were no redactions to pgs. 7428-

7431.

22nd Release

2020-ICLI-00042 

Pages GEO Group 

386, 387, 390,

392 to 394, 404, 

407, 661 and

GEO Group 770

to 775.

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

HSCEDM-11-D-00003 dated September 15, 2011, between ICE and The 

GEO Group Inc., Mod. No. P00045 signed June 3, 2020, to increase the 

not to exceed amounts for certain CLINs; Mod. No. P00044 to extend the 

Surge CLIN through September 16, 2021, and incorporate further 

guidance for care of ICE transgender detainees; Award/Contract 

HSCEDM-11-D-00003 between ICE and The GEO Group Inc. signed 

September 15, 2011; Mod. No. P00040 signed April 12, 2019, to extend 

a certain CLIN for additional 60 days and to add certain language re 

staffing levels; Mod. No. P00012 signed July 13, 2012, to fund certain 

CLINs; Mod. No. P00008 signed June 23, 2015, to increase the obligated 

amount of funds to cover the period through August 31, 2015, and Order 

for Supplies or Services in re Contract No. HSCEDM-11-D-00003, dated 

September 2, 2016 for detention and transportation service for ICE 

detainees in Aurora, Colorado.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. GEO Group 387, 

393-394, 407, and GEO Group 770-772 to cost increase values and not to 

exceed cost values, and hourly rates, bed counts, discounts terms, and 

year rate increase percentages. Note: ICE lifted the (b)(4) redaction on 

pg. GEO Group 387 for the new total contract value, as a matter of 

discretion. ICE also lifted the (b)(4) redaction on pgs. GEO Group 392 and 

394 for the Product/Service Code, and on pgs. GEO Group 773-775 for 

$0.00 carried forward.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold GEO’s pricing and 

related contract items such as discount terms and year rate increase 

percentages that is confidential and proprietary to GEO. FOIA Exemption 

4 protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information 

obtained from a company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

express or implied assurance of privacy. GEO is a for-profit, private 

national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with cities 

or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments where 

detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their immigration 

process. GEO competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services. The company has a clear commercial interest in maintaining 

competitive pricing and terms to win contract awards. GEO customarily 

treats the pricing structure of their contracts as confidential. Further ICE 

does not customarily release this type of pricing information belonging 

to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 113 of 138 PageID #:483
Page | 37

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to 

pgs. GEO Group 386-387, 390, 393-394, 404, 407, 661, and GEO Group

770 to the names, signatures, email addresses, suite numbers, and phone 

numbers of ICE Contracting Officer’s Representatives, Contracting Officer,

Contract Specialists, ICE Finance POC and ICE Program POC, federal 

employees who have not signed privacy waivers in this case. Note: ICE 

reprocessed pgs. GEO Group 386, 393 and GEO Group 404 to lift the 

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction of the name of the Executive Vice-President of 

The GEO Group as a public-facing individual, and reprocessed pg. GEO 

Group 661 to reveal the email domain for the ICE Contracting Officer’s 

Representatives.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to Accounting 

Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on pgs. GEO 

Group 771-772.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

23rd Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 8133, 8136

to 8145, 8178 to 

8180 and 8247

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract 

HSCEDM-15-D-00015 dated September 24, 2015, Mod. No. P0024, 

between ICE and The GEO Group Inc. (GEO) to exercise 5th Option Period 

of the Contract for the period of September 28, 2020 through September 

27, 2021 and to replace attachment 2 of the Contract with the new Dept. 

of Labor Wage Determinations; Award/Contract HSCEDM-15-D-00015 

signed September 24, 2015; Section C – Description/Specification 

Performance Work Statement for Contract HSCEDM-15-D-00015 and 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 114 of 138 PageID #:484
Page | 38

Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract HSCEDM-15-D00015, Mod. No. P00003 signed January 7, 2016.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. 8136-8145 to 

discount terms, bed day rates, transportation rates including lodging, 

cost increase values and not to exceed cost values and hourly rates

submitted by GEO. Note: ICE lifted the (b)(4) redaction on pg. 8144 to 

the Voluntary Work Program rate of $1 per day maximum that the 

government can pay which is capped by Congress.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold GEO’s pricing and 

related contract items such as discount terms and not to exceed cost 

values that is confidential and proprietary to GEO. FOIA Exemption 4 

protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained 

from a company that is privileged or confidential. The term 

“financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to encompass 

any information in which the submitter has a commercial interest and 

that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as confidential, 

financial/commercial information must be both customarily treated as 

private by its owner and provided to the government under either an 

express or implied assurance of privacy. GEO is a for-profit, private 

national firm which partners with ICE directly or via contracts with cities 

or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe environments where 

detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their immigration 

process. GEO competes for the awards of ICE contracts to provide such 

services. The company has a clear commercial interest in maintaining 

competitive pricing and terms to win contract awards. GEO customarily 

treats the pricing structure of their contracts as confidential. Further ICE 

does not customarily release this type of pricing information belonging 

to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to 

pgs. 8133, 8136-8137, and 8247 to the names, signatures, email 

addresses, suite numbers, and phone numbers of ICE Contracting Officer 

Representatives and ICE Finance POCs, federal employees who have not 

signed privacy waivers in this case. Note: ICE reprocessed pgs. 8247 to 

lift the (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction to the name of the Executive VicePresident for GEO which is a public facing position.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 115 of 138 PageID #:485
Page | 39

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to pgs. 8178 and 

8180 to language in the Performance Work Statement specifying the 

types of security-related equipment required of a contractor providing 

detention-related services for ICE detainees in the Seattle, Washington 

area. Note: ICE lifted the (b)(7)(E) redaction to the code for contractor 

GEO Group on pgs. 8133, 8136 and 8247.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects records compiled for law 

enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques 

or procedures which could risk circumvention of the law. Disclosing 

information regarding security equipment for detention officers could aid 

those seeking to gain unauthorized entry to the detention facility or to 

escape from the detention facility holding ICE detainees, or to cause 

other disturbance and potentially compromise facility staff and detainee 

safety, or undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE 

detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities.

Note: There were no redactions to pg. 8179. 

24th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 8729 to 

8734, 8905,

8980, 9151 to 

9153 and 9201

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

HSCEDM-15-D-00015/HSCEDM-15-J-00038 dated September 24, 2015

between ICE and The GEO Group Inc. (GEO), Mod. No. P00008 signed 

August 29, 2016, to fund task order associated with various CLINs and to 

extend the ending date to September 27, 2016 and Mod. No. P00009

signed January 17, 2017, to de-obligate funds and close out the task 

order(pgs. 8729-8734); Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of 

Contract ODT-5-C-003/70CDCR18FR0000080 dated June 26, 2018

between ICE and CoreCivic Inc. (CoreCivic), Mod. No. P00011 signed May 

15, 2019 to add funding and the period of performance through June 30, 

2019 (pg. 8905); Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

70CDCR20C00000007 dated December 19, 2019 between ICE and 

CoreCivic Inc., Mod. No. P00001 to add POCs for the contract and update 

pricing, et al (pg. 8980).; ICE Section C Performance Work Statement –

Detention Services (California-Wide)(October 25, 2019), subsection X.

Firearms/Body Armor (pgs. 9151-9153); CoreCivic’s Otay Mesa Detention 

Center Contract Staffing Pattern (pg. 9201).

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. 8729-8734 to the 

net increase and net decrease to the contract amount between ICE and 

GEO, including pricing for various Contract Line Item Nos. (CLINs) that 

caused the adjustments, discount terms, guaranteed minimum detention 

beds, and quantities and types of vehicles for transportation services. 

Exemption (b)(4) was applied to pg. 8905 to net increase to the contract

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 116 of 138 PageID #:486
Page | 40

amount between ICE and CoreCivic based on adjustment to various 

CLINs. Exemption (b)(4) was also applied to pg. 9201 to portions of 

CoreCivic’s Contract Staffing Pattern for the Otay Mesa Detention Center 

that revealed deployment per shift per position for 

Management/Support and Security Operations. Note: ICE reprocessed 

and lifted the (b)(4) redaction on pg. 8731 to CLIN 0003 re Detainee 

Volunteer Wages which is capped by Congress, and to the PSC (code) on 

pg. 8980.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(4) is asserted to withhold GEO and 

CoreCivic’s pricing and related contract items and CoreCivic’s staffing plan 

information that is confidential and proprietary to those companies. FOIA 

Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or financial 

information obtained from a company that is privileged or confidential. 

The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very broadly to 

encompass any information in which the submitter has a commercial 

interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify as 

confidential, financial/commercial information must be both customarily

treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under 

either an express or implied assurance of privacy. GEO and CoreCivic are

for-profit, private national firms which partner with ICE directly or via 

contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to provide safe 

environments where detainees can reside temporarily as they go through 

their immigration process. GEO and CoreCivic compete for the awards of 

ICE contracts to provide such services. The companies have clear 

commercial interestsin maintaining competitive pricing and terms to win 

contract awards. GEO and CoreCivic customarily treat the pricing 

structure of their contracts and staffing plans as confidential. Further ICE 

does not customarily release this type of pricing and staffing information 

belonging to a private, for-profit companies, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to 

pgs. 8729, 8732, 8905, and 8980 to the names, signatures, email 

addresses, suite numbers, and phone numbers of ICE Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative POCs, ICE Finance POC, ICE Contract 

Specialists and Contracting Officers, federal employees who have not 

signed privacy waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 117 of 138 PageID #:487
Page | 41

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to Accounting 

Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on pgs. 8730-

8731 and 8733-8734; to Performance Work Statement requirements 

related to firearms and body armor on pgs. 9151-9153, and to securityrelated staffing deployment by shift and position pg. 9201. Note: ICE 

reprocessed and lifted the (b)(7)(E) redaction to GEO’s code on pgs. 8729

and 8732, the CoreCivic code on pg. 8905, and the NAICS code on pg. 

8980. ICE added Exemption (b)(7)(E) to security-related staffing

deployment by shift and position on pg. 9201.

Reasons: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures, the disclosure of which could 

reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosure of 

internal ICE account numbers could assist unauthorized parties in gaining 

improper access to ICE financial accounts where bad actors could alter 

information or perpetrate identity theft or other harm. Disclosing 

information regarding security equipment for detention officers could aid 

those seeking to gain unauthorized entry to the detention facility or to 

escape from the detention facility holding ICE detainees, or to cause 

other disturbance and potentially compromise facility staff and detainee 

safety, or undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE 

detainees. Disclosing information on the number of security-related staff 

on duty per shift could reveal a vulnerability to being overrun by 

detainees and/or detainees in concert with non-detainees who enter the 

facility to facilitate escape or other disturbance and potentially 

compromising facility staff and detainee safety. The disclosure of this 

information serves no public benefit and would not assist the public in 

understanding how the agency is carrying out its statutory 

responsibilities.

25th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 9202 to 

9204, 9382, 

9383, 9445 and 

CoreCivic 122

and 127 and 

CoreCivic 143 to 

145

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

70CDCR20D00000007 dated December 19, 2019, between ICE and 

CoreCivic Inc., Mod. No. P00004 signed June 10, 2020, to add new CLINs 

for medical services, incorporate revised sections of the Performance 

Work Statement, and incorporate medical services staffing pattern; ICE 

Health Services Design Standards with schematics for Ambulatory Care 

Unit and materials to be used for walls; and CoreCivic schematic drawing 

for visitation area, staffing for armed transportation of detainees, and key

and change of lock management for facility operations at the Otay Mesa 

Detention Center submitted in response to ICE Request for Proposal 

70CDCR20R00000002.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. 9203-9204 to cost 

information submitted by CoreCivic including total amount for the 

modification, total increase caused by increases to costs for medical 

services. Exemption (b)(4) was also applied on pg. CoreCivic 122 to a 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(4),

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 118 of 138 PageID #:488
Page | 42

schematic drawing submitted by CoreCivic detailing the layout and 

proposed addition of five VTC booths to the visitation area in the 

detention facility.

Reason: FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

CoreCivic is a for-profit, private national firm which partners with ICE 

directly or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to 

provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

they go through their immigration process, including building and 

operating detention facilities. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE 

contracts to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial 

and proprietary interest in its pricing and schematics for build-to-suit 

detention facilities. CoreCivic customarily treats their pricing information 

and schematics as confidential. Further ICE does not customarily release 

this type of pricing and schematics information belonging to a private, 

for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to pg. 

9202 to the names, signatures, email addresses, suite numbers, and 

phone numbers of ICE Contracting Officer’s Representatives, ICE 

Contracting Officer’s Technical POC, and ICE Contracting Officer, federal 

employees who have not signed privacy waivers in this case. Note: ICE 

reprocessed pg. 9202 to lift the (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction to the name of 

the CoreCivic Inc. Vice President, Partnership Contracts Counsel who is a 

public-facing individual.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to pgs. 9382-9383

re ICE Health Services Design Standards that contain schematics showing 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 119 of 138 PageID #:489
Page | 43

ingress/egress and sally port locations for the Ambulatory Care Unit, and 

proximity of guard stations and details re security surveillance of such 

areas within the detention facility; to pgs. 9445 to the materials used for 

wallsin a detention site unit; to pgs. CoreCivic 122 to a schematic drawing

for the visitation area that shows ingress and egress locations and the 

layout of private rooms; to pgs. CoreCivic 127 detailing the staffing and 

procedures for armed transportation, and pgs. CoreCivic 143-145

detailing procedures for managing the keys and locks at the detention 

facility including schedules for inventory of keys and lock checks.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures which could reasonably be 

expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosure of schematics of 

portions of detention facilities that show points of ingress/egress and 

locations of guard stations, material used for walls, and information on 

staffing and procedures for armed transportation and procedures for 

managing keys and locks would reveal where the detention facility would 

be most vulnerable to efforts by bad actors to avoid detection and 

apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, and how to 

frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to prevent or quell 

such incidents. Public awareness of this operational and detention 

facility design information would aid those seeking to gain unauthorized 

entry to or to escape from the detention facility holding ICE detainees, or 

to cause other disturbance and potentially compromising facility staff 

and detainee safety, or undermine security measures taken while 

transporting ICE detainees. The disclosure of this information serves no 

public benefit and would not assist the public in understanding how the 

agency is carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

26th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 9536 to 

9538, 9827,

10029 to 10031

and 10037 to 

10038.

Partial Documents: Attachments to Detention Services Agreement between ICE 

and Pinal County, Arizona for Pinal County Adult Detention Center in 

Florence, Arizona , signed August 16, 2006, re Staffing Plan and Bus Route 

Schedule; Section C – Statement of Work for ICE detention services 

contractors, Subsection K. Uniform Requirements; ICE National Firearms 

& Tactical Training Unit (NFTTU) Guidelines and Interim ICE Firearms 

Policy dated July 7, 2004.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to pgs. 9537-9538

to security-related staffing deployment by position and shift, and to the 

daily bus schedule between Pinal County Jail and the Florence ICE 

Processing Center; to pg. 9827 as to detailed specifications for ICE 

contractor employees identification credentials; to pgs. 10030-10031 to 

details on the manufacturer, model and type of handcuffs, flexible 

restraints and other miscellaneous restraints and safety-related 

equipment approved for use by ICE’s NFTTU, and to pgs. 10037-10038 to 

the Carriage of Firearms section of the Interim ICE Firearms Policy. Note:

ICE lifted the (b)(7)(E) redactions on pg. 9536 for non-security-related 

staffing plans. There were no redactions to pg. 10029.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 120 of 138 PageID #:490
Page | 44

Reasons: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information 

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures which could reasonably be 

expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosing information on the 

staffing levels per shift for security-related detention services positions;

the route and schedule for the bus carrying detainees; details on 

requirements for detention contractor identification credentials, the 

types of handcuffs or other restraints used, and detailed information on 

ICE policy for ICE officer’s carriage of firearms both on and off duty could 

undermine the safety of the ICE officer and public and reduce the 

effectiveness of those procedures. Releasing operational information

related to security measures may also reveal a vulnerability to being 

overrun by detainees and/or detainees in concert with bad actor nondetainees who enter the facility to facilitate escape or other disturbance 

and potentially compromise facility staff and detainee safety or

undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE detainees. 

The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and would not 

assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its 

statutory responsibilities. 

27th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 10322 to 

10323, 10324,

10350, 10364 to 

10375, 10428

and 10429,

10542 to 10552,

10602 and 

10603, 10607

and 10608, and

10616

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract

HSCEDM-09-D-0007 dated April 22, 2009, between ICE and Corrections 

Corporations of America (now known as CoreCivic Inc.), Mod. No. P00012

signed March 21, 2012, to change contracting officer’s technical 

representative; Mod. No. P00013 signed March 26, 2012, to exercise 

option period three for the Houston Detention Service Facility and 

incorporate wage determinations; Mod. No. P00021 signed April 24, 

2014, to extend detention related services at the Houston Detention 

Facility and incorporate wage determinations; Mod. No. P00029 signed 

April 7, 2017; Mod. No. P00015 (unsigned) to correct monthly rate of 

CLIN 4001 to correct error in Mod. P00014; Mod. No. P00038 (unsigned)

to extend the period of performance from March 1, 2019 through March 

17, 2019, at no additional cost to Government and attached detention 

service-related cost schedules for proposed period January 2017 to 

December 2017; Section C – Performance Work Statement, Subsection 

IV subparts D. Securely Operate the Facility, H. Maintain Detainee 

Accountability, I. Collect and Disseminate Intelligence Information and

Subsection VII subparts F. Detainee Counts, G. Daily Inspections, and H. 

Control of Contraband, and Subsection X. Health Services, subpart C. re 

direct security supervision of detainees in the health unit.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(4) on pg. 10350 to 

cost information related to postage stamps; on pgs. 10365-10375 to bed 

day rates, transportation-related costs, guard services and detainee 

clothing costs; on pgs. 10428-10429 to monthly detention services costs, 

and to pgs. 10544-10552 for proposed detention services costs, including 

personnel and equipment for 2017 for the Houston ICE Processing 

Center, all proprietary and confidential information submitted by 

CoreCivic.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 121 of 138 PageID #:491
Page | 45

Reason: FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

CoreCivic is a for-profit, private national firm which partners with ICE 

directly or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE to 

provide safe environments where detainees can reside temporarily as 

they go through their immigration process, including building and 

operating detention facilities. CoreCivic competes for the awards of ICE 

contracts to provide such services. The company has a clear commercial 

and proprietary interest in its pricing for such services. CoreCivic 

customarily treats their pricing information as confidential. Further, ICE 

does not customarily release this type of pricing information belonging 

to a private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to 

pgs. 10322-10324, 10364, 10428-10429, 10542, and 10544-10545 to the 

names, signatures, email addresses, suite numbers, and phone numbers 

of ICE Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives, ICE Contracting 

Officer, ICE Program Office POC, ICE Contract Specialist, who are federal 

employees, and CoreCivic personnel on pg. 10544, a third party whose 

title is not provided, all of whom have not signed privacy waivers in this 

case. Note: ICE reprocessed pgs. 10364 and 10545 to lift the 

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction to the names of the Vice President of 

Partnership Development for CoreCivic Inc. and the Vice President of 

Treasury Tax who are public-facing individuals.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

Core Civic employee (whose title was not provided), to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 122 of 138 PageID #:492
Page | 46

individuals to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the CoreCivic employee, ICE cannot release this information to any 

member of the public. Members of the public may draw adverse 

inferences from the mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files 

of a criminal law enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown 

how the privacy interests of the individual in the records requested 

outweigh any minimal public interest in the disclosure of the information. 

Such disclosure would also not shed light on the operations or activities 

of the government.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) to Accounting 

Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on pg. 10428. 

ICE also applied FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) on pgs. 10602-10603, 10607-

10608 and 10616 to details in the Contract Performance of Work 

Statement Subsection IV subparts D., H., and I. and Subsection VII 

subparts F., G. and H., and Subsection X regarding procedures for the 

maintenance and security of keys and locking mechanisms; schedule for 

perimeter surveillance of the facility; procedures regarding detainee use 

of certain tools; the frequency and schedule for detainee counts; 

procedures for the types of information gathered regarding issues 

affecting safety and security of the facility; procedures to follow when the 

physical detainee count does not show all detainees accounted for; 

procedures for daily inspections of security aspects of the facility and 

control of contraband, and details on security staffing for the health unit.

Note: ICE lifted the (b)(7)(E) redactions on pgs. 10322, 10324, 10364, 

10428 and 10542, to the code for ICE contractor Corrections Corporation 

of America/CoreCivic.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information

compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose law 

enforcement techniques or procedures which could reasonably be 

expected to risk circumvention of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE 

account numbers could assist unauthorized parties in gaining improper 

access to ICE financial accounts where bad actors could alter information 

or perpetrate identity theft or other harm. Disclosing details for 

detention contractor’s maintenance and security of keys and locking 

mechanisms; schedule for perimeter surveillance of the facility; 

procedures regarding detainee use of tools that could be used as

weapons; schedule for detainee counts; procedures for daily inspections 

of security aspects of the facility and control of contraband; and security 

staffing for the health unit could reveal where the detention facility 

would be most vulnerable to bad actors’ efforts to avoid detection and 

apprehension when organizing an escape or disturbance, and how to 

frustrate or thwart security measures or procedures to prevent or quell 

such incidents. Public awareness of this operational information would 

aid those seeking to gain unauthorized entry to or to escape from the 

detention facility holding ICE detainees, or to cause other disturbance 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 123 of 138 PageID #:493
Page | 47

and potentially compromise facility staff and detainee safety or

undermine security measures taken while transporting ICE detainees. 

The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit and would not 

assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying out its

statutory responsibilities. 

28th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 

11086 to 11087,

11088 to 11090,

and 11091 to 

11093

Partial Documents: Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract 

DROIGSA-07-0015/70CDCR20FIGR00008 dated November 12, 2019, 

between ICE and LaSalle Economic Development District (which 

subcontracts with private detention services contractor The GEO Group 

Inc.), Mod. No. P00004 signed March 30, 2020, to increase CLIN 0010 in 

accordance with wage adjustment and obligate funding as result of 

increase; Mod. No. P00005 signed May 18, 2020, to increase obligated 

funding for task order for detention and care of persons detained and 

transportation/guard service for detention contract; Order for Supplies 

or Servicesre DROIGSA-07-0015/ 70CDCR20FIGR00008 dated and signed 

November 12, 2019, between ICE and LaSalle Economic Development 

District to establish a new order under IGSA No. DROIGSA-07-0015 for 

the counties of LaSalle and Rapides increasing the obligated amount to 

provide detention and care of persons detained and

transportation/guard service for detention contract.

(b)(4) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(4) to pgs. 11086-11093 to 

cost increase values for various CLINs, daily rates, bed counts, and 

discount terms as proprietary and confidential information of private 

detention services contractor GEO.

Reason: FOIA Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a company that is privileged or 

confidential. The term “financial/commercial” has been interpreted very 

broadly to encompass any information in which the submitter has a 

commercial interest and that generally pertains to commerce. To qualify 

as confidential, financial/commercial information must be both 

customarily treated as private by its owner and provided to the 

government under either an express or implied assurance of privacy. 

GEO is a for-profit, private national firm which partners with ICE directly 

or via contracts with cities or counties contracting with ICE, such as 

LaSalle Economic Development District, to provide safe environments 

where detainees can reside temporarily as they go through their 

immigration process. GEO competes for the awards of ICE contracts to 

provide such services. The company has a clear commercial and 

proprietary interest in its pricing for such services. GEO customarily 

treats their pricing information as confidential, and ICE does not 

customarily release this type of pricing information belonging to a 

private, for-profit company, to the public.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to pgs. 

11086, 11088, 11091 and 11092 to the names, signatures, email 

addresses, suite numbers, and phone numbers of ICE Contracting Officer 

Representatives, Contracting Officers, and a Contract Specialist who are 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(4),

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), 

(b)(7)(E)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 124 of 138 PageID #:494
Page | 48

federal employees, and the name and email address of a LaSalle 

Corrections Contractor POC, a third party, all of whom have not signed 

privacy waivers in this case.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent, such as the 

LaSalle Corrections employee, to prevent an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these individuals to harassment 

and annoyance in conducting their official duties and in their private lives, 

and (2) potentially placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement 

may begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge. 

Furthermore, without explicit consent of the LaSalle Corrections

employee, ICE cannot release this information to any member of the 

public. Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the 

mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law 

enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy 

interests of the individual in the records requested outweigh any minimal 

public interest in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would 

also not shed light on the operations or activities of the government.

(b)(7)(E) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) to Accounting 

Information from ICE’s Office of Acquisition Management on pgs. 11087, 

11090 and 11093. Note: ICE lifted the (b)(7)(E) redactions on pgs. 11086 

and 11088 to the code for contractor LaSalle Economic Development 

District, and on pg. 11093 to the ICE invoice email address.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(7)(E) exempts from release information that 

would disclose law enforcement techniques or procedures, the 

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention 

of the law. Disclosure of internal ICE account numbers could assist 

unauthorized parties in gaining improper access to ICE financial accounts

where bad actors could alter information or perpetrate identity theft or 

other harm. The disclosure of this information serves no public benefit 

and would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is 

carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 125 of 138 PageID #:495
Page | 49

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages 11975 to 

11976

Partial Documents: Email dated April 11, 2014, between DHS personnel - Deputy 

Assistant Director, Custody Management for ICE Enforcement and 

Removal Operations (ER0); Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of 

Detention Policy and Planning; Tae D. Johnson, Assistant Director for

Custody Management; Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Programs;

Chief of Staff for Custody Management; Deputy Press Secretary and Press 

Secretary for ICE, among other DHS federal employees - re coordinating 

a response to a New York Times reporter regarding whether ICE 

detainees at Butler County Jail are not getting paid for working cleaning 

jobs and which detention facilities that hold ICE detainees do not pay or 

pay less than $1 per day (for Voluntary Work Programs); what ICE 

guidelines require, and what facilities provide non-monetary payment.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pgs. 11975-11976 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section 

of the email of the Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Management;

Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Programs; Chief of Staff for 

Custody Management; ICE Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretary;

Chief of Staff for Custody Management; a Custody Management 

Detention Monitoring Unit personnel (whose name and phone numbers 

are also redacted from the signature line), and the name of the Chief of 

the Detention Monitoring Unit for Custody Management who were nonpublic facing, and to the names of other DHS personnel whose titles are 

not provided anywhere in all pages in the 34th interim release and it 

cannot be confirmed whether or not these individuals held a public facing 

position about a decade ago. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift 

the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc” section of the 

emails on pg. 11975 as he held the position of Assistant Director and then

Director for ICE Office of Public Affairs around this time, the latter of 

which is public facing.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 11986

Partial Document: Email dated April 28 and May 27, 2014, between DHS 

personnel – Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and 

Planning; Tae D. Johnson, Assistant Director for Custody Management

(ERO); ICE Press Secretary; DHS Deputy Press Secretary; a Custody 

Management Unit Chief (ERO), and Assistant Director of ICE OPA, among 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 126 of 138 PageID #:496
Page | 50

other DHS federal employees - re coordinating a response to a New York 

Times reporter on the subject of detention facilities holding ICE detainees 

with Voluntary Work Programs (VWPs) that provide monetary 

compensation vs. non-monetary compensation, and referencing a list of 

ICE-owned and contracted facilities.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on 

pg. 11986 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the 

email of the ICE Press Secretary (whose name and phone numbers are 

also redacted in the signature line); the DHS Deputy Press Secretary, and

a Unit Chief of Custody Management who were non-public facing, and to 

the names of other DHS personnel whose titles are not provided 

anywhere in all pages in the 34th interim release and it cannot be 

confirmed whether or not these individuals held public-facing positions

about a decade ago. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift the 

redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc” section of the emails 

on pg. 11986.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12002

Partial Document: Email dated May 4, 2015, between DHS personnel – Kevin 

Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning; the 

Deputy Division Director, Office of Detention Oversight of ICE Office of 

Professional Responsibility (OPR); the Deputy Assistant Director, Custody 

Management (ERO); Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Policy and 

Planning; Tae D. Johnson, Assistant Director for Custody Management

(ERO); the Deputy Assistant Director of Custody Programs (ERO); Deputy

Principal Legal Advisor of ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA); the 

Chief of the Detention Monitoring Unit, Custody Management (ERO), 

among others - re the ICE OPR Office of Detention Oversight Close Out 

Report (preliminary findings) related to an inspection of the Butler 

County, Hamilton, Ohio Detention Center conducted April 28-30, 2015.

(b)(6,(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

12002 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the email 

of ICE OPR’s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Detention 

Oversight)(whose first name is also redacted from the text of the email 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 127 of 138 PageID #:497
Page | 51

sent May 4, 2015 at 3:52 p.m.); the Deputy Assistant Director for ERO 

Custody Management (whose email address is also redacted); the

Deputy Assistant Director for Office of Detention Policy and Planning; two 

ICE contractors, and a Creative Corrections employee (ICE detention 

service contractor) who were all non-public facing federal employees, 

and to the names of other DHS personnel and other potentially non-DHS 

personnel third parties whose titles and email addresses are not provided 

anywhere in all pages in the 34th interim release and it cannot be 

confirmed whether or not these individuals held public facing positions

about nine years ago.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

FOIA Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) protect from disclosure PII 

pertaining to third parties who have not provided consent to prevent an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy by: (1) conceivably subjecting these 

individuals to harassment and annoyance in conducting their official 

duties and in their private lives, and (2) potentially placing them in danger 

as targets of law enforcement may begrudge personnel for an indefinite 

time period and seek revenge. Furthermore, without explicit consent of 

the third parties, ICE cannot release this information to any member of 

the public. Members of the public may draw adverse inferences from the 

mere fact that an individual is mentioned in the files of a criminal law 

enforcement agency. Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown how the privacy 

interests of the individual in the records requested outweigh any minimal 

public interest in the disclosure of the information. Such disclosure would 

also not shed light on the operations or activities of the government.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12018

Partial Document: Email dated April 28, 2014, between DHS personnel – DHS 

Deputy Press Secretary and ICE Press Secretary; Assistant Director for ICE 

OPA, and a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO), among other DHS

personnel - regarding coordinating a response to the New York Times 

reporter about detention facilities holding ICE detainees with VWPs that 

provide monetary compensation vs. non-monetary compensation.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

12018 to names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the email of 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 128 of 138 PageID #:498
Page | 52

the DHS Deputy Press Secretary; the ICE Press Secretary (whose name, 

email address and phone numbers are also redacted in the signature 

line), and a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO) who were not 

public-facing, and to the names of other DHS personnel whose titles are 

not provided anywhere in all the pages in the 34th interim release and it 

cannot be confirmed whether or not these individuals held a public facing 

position about a decade ago. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift 

the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc” section of the 

emails on pg. 12018.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12028

Partial Document: Email dated April 25, 2014, between DHS personnel – ICE 

Press Secretary; Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Management (ERO);

a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO); the Chief and other 

personnel from the Detention Monitoring Unit of Custody Management

(ERO); Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and 

Planning, and Tae D. Johnson, Assistant Director for Custody 

Management (ERO) – related to coordinating a response to the New York 

Times reporter inquiry about detention facilities holding ICE detainees

that have VWPs (although the subject line references an inquiry 

regarding automatic license plate readers from McClatchy News, The 

Kansas City Star).

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

12028 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the email 

of the ICE Press Secretary; Deputy Assistant Director, Custody 

Management (ERO); a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO); the 

Chief and other personnel from the Detention Monitoring Unit of 

Custody Management (ERO) who were not public-facing. Note: Upon 

litigation review, ICE would lift the (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) redaction to the first 

line of email text as to the name “Paul” that follows the words, “Yes, it 

had that and”, because it was determined that it was a reference to Paul 

Rosen, the DHS Chief of Staff, who was public facing.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 129 of 138 PageID #:499
Page | 53

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12038

Partial Document: Email dated April 25, 2014, between DHS personnel – Kevin 

Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning; a Unit 

Chief for Custody Management (ERO); ICE Press Secretary; Deputy 

Assistant Director, Custody Management (ERO); Assistant Director, ICE 

OPA; Chief of the Detention Monitoring Unit, Custody Management

(ERO); Phillip T. Miller, Assistant Director, Field Operations (ERO), and 

personnel from the Detention Monitoring Unit, Custody Management 

(ERO) - related to coordinating a response to the New York Times reporter 

inquiry about detention facilities holding ICE detainees that have VWPs 

(though the subject line references an unrelated inquiry regarding 

automatic license plate readers from McClatchy News, The Kansas City 

Star).

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg.

12038 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the email 

of a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO) (whose first name is also 

redacted from the text of the email at the top of the pg.); ICE Press 

Secretary (whose name and phone numbers are also redacted in the 

signature line); Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Management (ERO); 

Chief of the Detention Monitoring Unit, Custody Management (ERO), and 

personnel from the Detention Monitoring Unit, Custody Management

(ERO) who were not public-facing. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE 

would lift the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc” section 

of the emails on pg. 12038.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 130 of 138 PageID #:500
Page | 54

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Pages

12056-12058

Partial Document: Emails dated April 11 and 14, 2014y, between DHS personnel 

– Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning;

ICE Deputy Press Secretary; a Unit Chief, Custody Management (ERO); 

Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Programs (ERO); Deputy Assistant 

Director Custody Management (ERO); Chief of Staff, Custody 

Management (ERO); ICE Press Secretary, and Assistant Director, ICE OPA

– regarding formulating a response to questions from the New York Times 

reporter regarding detention facilities holding ICE detainees that have 

VWPs, specifically in response to Sheriff Jones from Butler County Jail 

reporting that ICE detainees at his jail perform cleaning work without pay 

in the section of the jail where they are held.

(b)(5) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to segregable 

portions of the content of the email message on pg. 12058 sent at 1:15 

p.m. where Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and 

Planning is responding to the ICE Deputy Press Secretary as to media 

news of Sheriff Jones’ statement about immigrant detainees doing work 

on cleaning and upkeep of the section of the jail where they are housed 

without being paid, and Mr. Landy provides his opinion on whether the 

report, if true, violates ICE detention standards and what actions should 

be taken to address the issue. FOIA Exemption (b)(5) was applied to 

portions of the content of the email message on pg. 12057 sent at 1:31 

p.m. where the Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Management is 

seeking clarification from the ICE Deputy Press Secretary on whether the 

reporter is alleging ICE detainees are not receiving monetary 

compensation at two other named detention facilities that house ICE 

detainees but then asks that the question be disregarded as the Chief of 

Staff for Custody Management had sent follow up questions. FOIA 

Exemption (b)(5) was applied to segregable portions of the content of 

email message on pgs. 12056 and 12057 sent on April 11, 2014 at 1:55 

p.m. which is Deputy Assistant Director of Custody Programs’ proposed 

statement to be released to the media which Kevin Landy opposes as 

indicated in his email response sent April 14, 2014 at 9:52 a.m. FOIA 

Exemption (b)(5) was also applied on pg. 12056 to segregable portions of 

Kevin Landy’s email sent April 11, 2014 at 4:03 p.m. providing his opinion

that ERO Custody Management’s reading of ICE’s 2011 PerformanceBased National Detention Standards (PBNDS) contradicts his reading of 

its requirements with regard to the VWP, and his opinion that the 

proposed statement for the media also contradicts information 

previously released to the media and how that might adversely affect the 

agency, and providing recommendations for addressing the issue.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(5) protects information that is predecisional and deliberative. The emails between Kevin Landy, the 

Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning and executives 

from the Custody Management Division set forth discussion points, 

questions, thoughts, comments and suggestions for addressing the

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(5),

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 131 of 138 PageID #:501
Page | 55

media’s questions related how the VWP in implemented at detention 

facilities that house ICE detainees. These emails do not contain final 

policy or position of ICE on the matter as shown by Tae D. Johnson,

Director of Custody Management’s email on pg. 12055 (not part of the 

Vaughn sampling) replying to Kevin Landy that he disagrees with Mr. 

Landy’s opinion on his reading of the PBNDS on the VWP. The email from 

the Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Management asking the ICE 

Deputy Press Secretary whether the reporter is alleging ICE detainees are 

not being paid for work at two other named facilities was withdrawn so 

that more information could be obtained from the Chief of Staff for 

Custody Management. Such pre-decisional and deliberative information 

is expressly protected by FOIA Exemption (b)(5), which is applied to 

protect the integrity of the deliberative or decision-making processes 

within the agency and by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, 

conclusions, and recommendations, and pre-decisional information that 

if released could cause public confusion as to facts. The identifiable and 

foreseeable harm that would be caused by disclosure of this information 

that it would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the 

free and frank exchange of information and ideas between agency 

personnel, which would hinder the ability of the agency executives to be 

fully informed to make quality decisions about responding to the

questions and issues raised by the media, resulting in a chilling effect on 

intra-agency communications.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) to 

these pages as follows:

On pg. 12056 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the 

emails of ICE’s Deputy Press Secretary; Deputy Assistant Director, 

Custody Programs (ERO); Deputy Assistant Director, Custody 

Management (ERO); Chief of Staff, Custody Management (ERO), and ICE 

Press Secretary who were not public facing, and to the name of one other

DHS personnel whose title is not provided anywhere in all pages of the 

34th interim release and it cannot be confirmed whether or not the 

individual held a public facing position about a decade ago.

On pg. 12056 in the text of the email sent on April 14, 2014, at 9:59 a.m. 

to the name of a Unit Chief from Custody Management (ERO) and to the 

first name of another ICE personnel whose identity and title cannot be 

determined to confirm whether the individual held a public facing 

position about a decade ago. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift 

the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc:” section of the 

emails on pg. 12056 sent at 1:55 p.m. and 4:03 p.m.

On pg. 12057 in the email signature line to the name, phone numbers 

and email address of the Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Programs

(ERO), and to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the 

email of the Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Management (ERO); ICE 

Deputy Press Secretary; Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Programs

(ERO; Chief of Staff, Custody Management (ERO) (whose first name is also 

redacted from the text of the April 11, 2014 email sent at 1:33 p.m.), and

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 132 of 138 PageID #:502
Page | 56

ICE Press Secretary who were not pubic facing, and to the name of one 

other DHS personnel whose title is not provided anywhere in all pages 

of the 34th interim release and it cannot be confirmed whether or not the 

individual held a public facing position about a decade ago. Note: Upon 

litigation review, ICE would lift the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale 

in the “Cc:” section of emails on pg. 12057 sent at 1:31 p.m. and 1:33 

p.m.

On pg. 12058 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the 

email of ICE Deputy Press Secretary; Deputy Assistant Director, Custody 

Management (ERO); Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Programs(ERO); 

Chief of Staff, Custody Management (ERO), and ICE Press Secretary, who 

were not public-facing. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift the 

redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc:” section of all emails 

on pg. 12058.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12060

Partial Document: Email dated April 11, 2014 from Tae D. Johnson, Assistant 

Director for Custody Management to ERO Executives and the Acting 

Director of ICE regarding a drafted proposed statement in response to the 

New York Times reporter questions regarding the VWP.

(b)(5) Redaction: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to the text of the 

email with the preface “Proposed Statement:”. The proposed statement 

is a draft proposed response to the media regarding its inquiry about the 

VWP and is pre-decisional and deliberative.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(5) protects information that is predecisional and deliberative. The redacted proposed statement sets forth 

suggestions for interpreting the reading of ICE’s PBNDS related to the 

VWP before and after the 2011 PBNDS revisions; how detention facilities, 

prior to the 2011 PBNDS, operating under the National Detention 

Standards (NDS) may have been directed to provide monetary 

compensation under the VWP, and whether there were historical 

incidents of some facilities not providing monetary compensation, and 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(5),

(b)(6), 

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 133 of 138 PageID #:503
Page | 57

whether the monetary compensation requirement should be included as 

part of the NDS annual inspections for county jails that house mixed 

populations of federal, state and local inmates as well as ICE detainees. 

Such pre-decisional and deliberative information is expressly protected 

by FOIA Exemption (b)(5), which is applied to protect the integrity of the 

deliberative or decision-making processes within the agency and by 

exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, conclusions, and 

recommendations. The deliberative and pre-decisional nature of the 

proposed statement is further supported by the email exchange between 

Kevin Landy and the ICE Press Secretary dated April 14, 2014 on pg. 

12056, which indicates Mr. Landy’s strong objection to using the 

proposed statement, and the reply from the Deputy Press Secretary that 

she agrees and that a revised statement was being prepared. The 

identifiable and foreseeable harm that would be caused by disclosure of 

this information is that it would discourage the expression of candid 

opinions and inhibit the free and frank exchange of information and ideas 

between agency personnel, which would hinder the ability of the agency 

executives to be fully informed to make quality decisions about 

responding to the questions and issues raised by the media, resulting in 

a chilling effect on intra-agency communications.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

12060 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the emails 

of a Unit Chief of Custody Management (ERO) who was not public facing,

and a DHS personnel whose title is not provided anywhere in all pages of 

the 34th interim release and it cannot be confirmed whether or not the 

individual held a public facing position about a decade ago. ICE also 

applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 12060 to the email addresses 

of then public-facing ICE Executives Timony S. Robbins and Thomas 

Homan.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12070

Partial Document: Email dated April 22 and 23, 2014 between Custody 

Management Executives (ERO); Assistant Director for ICE OPA, and ICE 

Press Secretary, among other ICE personnel, pertaining to preparing a 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 

§ 552 (b)(6),

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 134 of 138 PageID #:504
Page | 58

Custody Management Division authorized list of facilities with VWPs in 

responding to the New York Times inquiry.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 

12070 to the names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the emails 

of the Deputy Assistant Director, Custody Management (ERO) (whose 

first name is also redacted from the text of the April 22, 2014 email sent 

at 7:42 p.m.); ICE Press Secretary, and Acting Chief of the Detention 

Standards Compliance Unit (ERO) who are not public-facing. Note: Upon 

litigation review, ICE would lift the redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale 

in the “From:” section of the email on pg. 12070 sent on April 23, 2014 

at 2:06 p.m., and in the “Cc:” section of the email sent on April 22, 2014

at 7:42 p.m. and 2:48 p.m.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of 

the PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which 

were compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: 

(1) conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance 

in conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

(b)(7)(C)

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12217

N/A Document: Emails dated April 22, 2014 between Executives of ICE OPLA

and ICE OPA, ERO and the ICE Front Office regarding concurrence for the 

updated proposed statement for release to the New York Times 

pertaining to the VWP.

Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift the redaction to the name 

Paul Rosen in the “Cc:” section of each of the emails as he was DHS Chief 

of Staff, a public-facing position, and to the names of Riah Ramlogan in 

the “From:” section and Brian P. Hale in the “To:” section of the email at 

the bottom of the page as they held public-facing positions of Acting 

Principal Legal Advisor and Director of ICE OPA, respectively, at that time.

N/A

34th Release

2020-ICLI-00042

Page 12222

Partial Document: Emails dated May 2 and 28, 2014, among Executives of ICE 

OPLA, ICE OPA, ERO and the ICE Front Office regarding OPLA’s legal 

analysis of compensation rates for ICE detainees who participate in the 

VWP.

(b)(5) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemption (b)(5) to segregable 

sections of the text in the emails on pg. 12222 which consist of ICE Acting 

Principal Legal Advisor Riah Ramlogan’s analysis of the 1979 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(5), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 135 of 138 PageID #:505
Page | 59

Appropriations Act and opinion on the sources of ICE’s legal authority to 

pay voluntary detainee workers at the rate of $1 per day since that level 

was set by Congress in 1979; Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy 

and Planning, Kevin Landy’s comment and response to OPLA’s analysis 

and opinion, and OPLA providing further background and opinion for Mr.

Landy on whether the $1 per day rate was a maximum or a minimum for 

ICE and/or detention service contractors implementing the VWP at 

detention facilities. This information is deliberative, attorney-client 

privileged and attorney work product privileged.

Reason: FOIA Exemption (b)(5) protects information that is predecisional, deliberative, attorney-client privileged and attorney work 

product privileged. The email exchanges between and among ICE OPLA 

and ICE Front Office Executives set forth discussion points, thoughts, 

comments and opinions between ICE at its legal counsel (OPLA) on ICE’s 

legal authority to pay voluntary detainee workers and reimburse 

detention service contractors implementing the program at the rate of 

$1 per day; the ICE Front Office is seeking input and advice in connection 

with addressing potential or pending media inquiries on the topic which 

may raise litigation risk. Such pre-decisional and deliberative information 

is expressly protected by FOIA Exemption (b)(5), which is applied to 

protect the integrity of the deliberative or decision-making processes 

within the agency and by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, 

conclusions and recommendations. The identifiable and foreseeable 

harm that would be caused by disclosure of this information is that it 

would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free 

and frank exchange of information and ideas between agency personnel

and their attorneys, which would hinder the ability of the agency 

executives to be fully informed to make quality decisions, including legal 

decisions, in responding to the questions and issues raised by the media, 

resulting in a chilling effect on intra-agency communications.

The information being withheld also contains attorney-client privileged 

information that was shared between ICE attorneys (OPLA) and their 

client (the ICE Front Office). Specifically, the client and OPLA are 

discussing whether paying the $1 per day rate is legally permissible and 

authorized by statute and Congressional appropriations language.

Though the OPLA attorney opines that the “bottom line” is that the $1 

per day is legally permissible, which information is not redacted, the 

portions of the email redacted contain the attorney’s opinions and advice 

related to how that position was reached based upon interpretation of 

appropriations language and public law related to compensating 

detainee workers, and discusses questions that remain for the agency to 

determine on the topic. The purpose of this FOIA Exemption is to protect 

the confidential communications between OPLA and its client relating to 

a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)

on pg. 12222 to names in the “Cc:” section and in the text of the May 28, 

2014 email sent at 9:29 a.m.; to names in the “Cc:” section of the May 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 136 of 138 PageID #:506
Page | 60

28, 2014 email sent at 9:18 a.m., and to names in the “To:” section of the 

May 2, 2014 email whose titles are not provided anywhere in all the 

pages in the 34th interim release and it cannot be determined whether or 

not these individuals held a public-facing positions about a decade ago. 

ICE also applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) on pg. 12222 to the 

names of ICE personnel in the “To:” and “Cc:” section of the May 2, 2014 

email consisting of the ICE Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretary

and a Unit Chief for Custody Management (ERO), who were not public 

facing.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of the 

PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

34th Release

12225

Partial Document: Email dated April 22, 2014 from the Acting Unit Chief, 

Detention Standards Compliance Unit (ERO) to the Deputy Assistant 

Director, Custody Management (ERO), transmitting an excel spreadsheet

pertaining to VWPs at ERO Custody Management authorized detention 

facilities, and copying Tae D. Johnson, Assistant Director, Custody 

Management (ERO); Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention 

Policy and Planning, and Assistant Director ICE OPA and ICE Press 

Secretary. Email reply from Kevin Landy dated April 22, 2014, copying the 

same parties.

(b)(5) Redactions: ICE applied Exemption (b)(5) to segregable content in 

the text of Kevin Landy’s reply email sent April 22, 2014 at 2:51 p.m.

which contain his advice, comments and suggestions regarding the 

information included in the excel spreadsheet in anticipation of sharing 

such information with the media. The information is deliberative.

Reason: Mr. Landy, in the redacted portions of his email reply, is providing 

his advice and opinions on problematic issues he sees regarding a draft 

excel spreadsheet being prepared by ERO regarding detention facilities 

with work programs, in anticipation of its release to the media. Such predecisional and deliberative information is expressly protected by FOIA 

Exemption (b)(5), which is applied to protect the integrity of the 

deliberative or decision-making processes within the agency and by 

exempting from mandatory disclosure opinions, conclusions, and

recommendations that have not been finalized. The identifiable and 

Freedom of 

Information 

Act 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 552 (b)(5), 

(b)(6),

(b)(7)(C)

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 137 of 138 PageID #:507
Page | 61

foreseeable harm that would be caused by disclosure of this information 

is that it would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit 

the free and frank exchange of information and ideas between agency 

personnel which would hinder the ability of the agency executives to be 

fully informed to make quality decisions in responding to the questions 

and issues raised by the media, resulting in a chilling effect on intraagency communications.

(b)(6),(b)(7)(C) Redactions: ICE applied FOIA Exemptions (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) 

on pg. 12225 to names in the “From:”, “To:” and “Cc:” section of the 

emails to the names of the Acting Unit Chief, Detention Standards 

Compliance Unit (ERO) (whose name, cubicle number and phone 

numbers are also redacted in the signature line); Deputy Assistant 

Director, Custody Management (ERO), and ICE Press Secretary, who were 

not public-facing. Note: Upon litigation review, ICE would lift the 

redaction to the name of Brian P. Hale in the “Cc” section of the email on 

pg. 12225 sent at 2:48 p.m.

Reason: Under FOIA exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), the disclosure of the 

PII of non-public facing DHS/ICE personnel in these records, which were 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, could reasonably be expected 

to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by: (1) 

conceivably subjecting ICE personnel to harassment and annoyance in 

conducting their official duties and in their private lives; (2) potentially 

placing them in danger as targets of law enforcement investigations may 

begrudge personnel for an indefinite time period and seek revenge; and 

(3) possibly minimizing their ability to effectively conduct future 

investigations. The disclosure of this PII serves no public benefit and 

would not assist the public in understanding how the agency is carrying 

out its statutory responsibilities. As a result, the privacy interest in this 

PII outweighs any minimal public interest that could possibly exist in the 

disclosure of this information.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 77 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 138 of 138 PageID #:508