Opinion ID: 479151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Posture of the Case Upon Summary Judgment

Text: 42 As the linchpin in establishing a due process violation, plaintiffs sought to uncover conclusive evidence that the INS was merely rubber-stamping the BHRHA's advisory opinion in every case. The plaintiffs argued that the INS' allegedly pro forma approval of recommendations rendered by the Office of Asylum Affairs denied Salvadoran aliens their right to an asylum hearing before either an immigration judge or the Deputy Director. During discovery both parties took extensive depositions, produced numerous documents, and responded to lengthy interrogatories. Nevertheless, two of plaintiffs' document requests pertaining to the asylum issue were still outstanding when the district court ruled on defendants' summary judgment motion. 43 Plaintiffs sought two sets of documents. First, they requested to review the individual INS file for each Salvadoran national who applied for asylum (the A files); the INS has established an A file for every asylum applicant. Second, they sought a breakdown by nationality of the State Department's recommendation rates of asylum. Defendants objected to these requests, claiming that they were oppressive and unduly burdensome, immaterial and irrelevant, and that [t]o disclose the documents requested would violate the confidentiality which [the defendants] traditionally extended to the files of aliens and would violate their right to privacy. Responses and Objections by Defendants to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents, filed Oct. 17, 1983, at 1-2, 3. 44 Without having produced the requested documentation, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the asylum issue. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved to compel discovery and requested in camera review of the allegedly confidential records. In response, defendants filed a motion for a protective order seeking denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel and preclusion of further discovery until the court ruled on their dispositive motion. The district court held a status call at which it entertained pending motions but did not dispose of the relevant discovery issues, indicating it would take the parties' motions under advisement. The district court apparently had not ruled on the cross-motions when it heard oral argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment. Appellants' Brief at 22.