UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, by its attorney John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District 

of Illinois, answers Plaintiff’s requests for admissions as follows:

General Objections

1. All responses and objections are based only upon such information and documents 

that are presently available and in defendant’s possession. All responses and objections are 

provided without prejudice to presenting further information, documents, evidence, or analyses 

not yet identified, obtained, or completed.

2. Defendant objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek materials 

protected by any privilege, doctrine, or immunity, including the attorney-client privilege, the work 

product privilege, and any other applicable privilege recognized by common law, statutes, or rules 

of evidence. To the extent that defendant inadvertently produces any privileged materials, such 

inadvertent disclosures shall not constitute a waiver of protection. Defendant reserves the right to 

object to the use of any privileged materials in this or any other litigation. 

JACQUELINE STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2725

Judge Rowland

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:106
2

3. Defendant objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they attempt to 

impose obligations in addition to those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, or any other 

applicable procedural rule.

The foregoing General Objections are incorporated by reference in each of the specific 

responses below as if fully set forth therein.

Answers and Specific Objections

1. Admit that ICE has a mandatory statutory duty under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) to 

conduct a reasonable search for records responsive to FOIA requests

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

2. Admit that ICE has a mandatory duty to make a determination to provide or 

withhold responsive records on each requests within the time period set forth in 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(a)(6): 20 business days, to be extended by no more than 10 business days in the event that 

the agency notifies the requester in writing of the existence of “unusual circumstances.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 522(a)(6)(B)(i). 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

3. Admit that in its 2017, 2018, and 2019 annual budgets submitted to Congress ICE 

did not request funds sufficient for the agency to carry out its statutory obligations to comply with 

the Freedom of Information Act.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:107
3

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

4. Admit that in 2017, 2018, and 2019 ICE received funds from Congress sufficient 

to pay for responding to 95% of FOIA requests submitted to the agency within the statutory time 

frame. 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

5. Admit that ICE has not allocated sufficient staff to respond to FOIA requests by the 

deadlines mandated by the FOIA statute. 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

6. Admit that fewer than 15% of FOIA requests that were not accepted for expedited 

review, submitted to the agency during Financial year 2016 were processed within the statutory 

deadlines specified in 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6).

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

7. Admit that fewer than 15% of FOIA requests that were not accepted for expedited 

review, submitted to the agency during Financial Year 2017 were processed within the statutory 

deadlines specified in 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6). 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:108
4

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

8. Admit that fewer than 15% of FOIA requests that were not accepted for expedited 

review, submitted to the agency during Financial Year 2018 were processed within the statutory 

deadlines specified in 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6). 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

9. Admit that fewer than 15% of FOIA requests that were not accepted for expedited 

review, submitted to the agency during Financial Year 2019 were processed within the statutory 

deadlines specified in 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6).

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

10. Admit that fewer than 15% of FOIA requests that were not accepted for expedited 

review, submitted to the agency during Financial Year 2020 were processed within the statutory 

deadlines specified in 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6). 

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

11. Admit that records requests by FOIA officers of ICE employees who work in 

enforcement, detention, and removal operations produced no responsive records from the field 

within the deadlines stated by the FOIA officers for over 85% of requests for fiscal year 2018.

Case: 1:20-cv-02725 Document #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:109
5

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

12. Admit that records requests by FOIA officers of ICE employees who work in 

enforcement, detention, and removal operations produced no responsive records from the field 

within the deadlines stated by the FOIA officers for over 85% of requests for fiscal year 2019.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant to either 

party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 

F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

13. Admit that records requests by FOIA officers of ICE employees who work in 

enforcement, detention, and removal operations produced no responsive records from the field 

within the deadlines stated by the FOIA officers for over 85% of requests for the fiscal year 2019.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, 

duplicative, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to either party’s claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Wheeler v. CIA, 

271 F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

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 #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:110
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alex Hartzler, an attorney, hereby certify that on November 13, 2020, I caused

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS to be served 

by email (the parties having agreed to serve by email) upon the following counsel of record:

Nicolette Glazer

Law Office of Larry R. Glazer

Watt Plaza

1875 Century Park East #700

Century City, California 90067

(708) 435-0404

nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

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 #: 16-2 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:111