Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States, et al.,
Defendants.

14

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
FEBRUARY 23, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 2 of 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2

Page

3

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

4

II.
III.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................................................. 2
ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
A.
Legal Standard Governing the Law Enforcement Privilege .................................. 5
B.
Defendants Have Not Satisfied the Elements of the Law Enforcement
Privilege. They Must Provide a Proper Privilege Log, or Produce the
Documents for Which They Have Asserted the Law Enforcement
Privilege ................................................................................................................. 7
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 9

5
6
7
8

IV.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – i
138389223.6

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 3 of 17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page

CASES

Bernat v. City of California City,
No. 1:10–cv–00305 OWW JLT, 2010 WL 4008361 (E.D. Cal. 2010) .................................6, 8
Conan v. City of Fontana,
No. EDCV 16–1261–KK, 2017 WL 2874623 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) ...................................5
Hampton v. City of San Diego,
147 F.R.D. 227 (S.D. Cal. 1993) ...............................................................................................8
Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
C 06-00545 WHA, 2009 WL 5069133 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009), vacated and
remanded on other grounds by, 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012)...................................................6
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
236 F. Supp. 3d 150 (D.D.C. 2017) ...................................................................................5, 6, 7
In re Sealed Case,
856 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................5
Kelly v. City of San Jose,
114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ...............................................................................................8
MacNamara v. City of New York,
249 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................................................................6
Maria Del Socorro Quintero Perez, CY v. United States,
No. 13cv1417-WQH-BGS, 2016 WL 362508 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) ..............................8, 9
Miller v. Pancucci,
141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992) ...............................................................................................5
Nat’l Cong. for Puerto Rican Rights ex rel. Perez v. City of New York,
194 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................................................................6

23

Tuite v. Henry,
181 F.R.D. 175 (D.D.C. 1998) aff’d, 203 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999)..................................5, 6, 9

24

RULES

25

82 Fed. Reg. 8977 ............................................................................................................................2

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – ii
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 4 of 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)

1
2

Page

3

82 Fed. Reg. 13209 ..........................................................................................................................2

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) .........................................................................................................5

5

Rule 26 .............................................................................................................................................5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– iii
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 5 of 17

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

In response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Defendants have broadly invoked the law

3

enforcement privilege to justify redacting or withholding hundreds of responsive documents.

4

But in doing so, Defendants have failed to satisfy the requirements for invoking that privilege. A

5

governmental party cannot simply say the magic words, “law enforcement privilege,” and on that

6

basis alone withhold or redact responsive documents. The law requires more. Notably, the

7

Court spoke to this issue in its October 19, 2017 Order. Dkt. 98. In that order, the Court

8

compelled Defendants to produce a class list.1 Id. at 3. Defendants had refused, in part, by

9

arguing the information would be subject to the law enforcement privilege. In rejecting that

10

argument, the Court articulated the law governing the law enforcement privilege, and pointed out

11

that Defendants had failed to meet their burden:

12

To claim this privilege, the Government must satisfy three
requirements: (1) there must be a formal claim of privilege by the
head of the department having control over the requested
information; (2) assertion of the privilege must be based on actual
personal consideration by that official; and (3) the information for
which the privilege is claimed must be specified, with an
explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege.
This privilege is qualified: “[t]he public interest in nondisclosure
must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access
to the privileged information.”

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Id. (citing In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 271-72 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Once again, Defendants
refuse to comply with that standard. Specifically, and contrary to the Court’s October 19 order,
they refuse to provide a declaration from the head of the department formally claiming the
privilege or even identify the agency official who reviewed the documents. Because Defendants
have again failed to properly invoke the law enforcement privilege, the Court should order
Defendants to produce these documents unredacted.

24
25
26

1

Despite repeated requests, both in writing and over the phone, Defendants still have not produced the
class list the Court ordered back in October 2017. Plaintiffs anticipate having to file another motion concerning this
issue.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 6 of 17

1

Defendants also refuse to provide a proper privilege log with the requisite (and specific)

2

details so that Plaintiffs can determine whether the privilege is being applied inappropriately or

3

whether the interest in disclosure outweighs non-disclosure. This is not the first time Defendants

4

have asserted that the rules governing privilege logs should not apply to them. In its October 19,

5

2017 Order, the Court made clear that Defendants could not simply withhold classified

6

documents without “provid[ing] Plaintiffs with a proper privilege log.” Dkt. 98 at 5. Defendants

7

had also asserted that they did not have to search for documents relating to the Executive Orders

8

because they claimed such documents would be subject to the deliberative-process privilege.

9

The Court rejected this argument as well, explaining that “the Government fails to show why it is

10

exempt from providing Plaintiffs with a privilege log.” Id. The Court made clear that “the

11

Government must provide a proper privilege log if it means to assert a deliberative-process

12

privilege over certain documents.” Id. (emphasis added). The same requirement for a “proper

13

privilege log” should apply to Defendants’ heavy reliance on the law enforcement privilege.

14

In sum, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to order Defendants either to produce the withheld

15

material without redactions or comply with the threshold requirements for invoking the law

16

enforcement privilege. To meet those threshold requirements, Defendants must—for each

17

document they assert is privileged—submit an affidavit or declaration from the head of the

18

department with control over the requested information (1) affirming that the agency generated

19

or collected the materials at issue and maintained its confidentiality; (2) stating that the official

20

has personally reviewed the materials in question; (3) identifying specific government interests

21

that would be threatened by disclosure to plaintiff and/or plaintiffs’ counsel, and (4) describing

22

how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of

23

harm to government interests. Additionally, Defendants must provide a proper privilege log

24

clearly stating the basis for the privilege in light of the protective order, and the identity of the

25

official invoking it in each particular instance. Boilerplate narratives are plainly insufficient.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 2
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 7 of 17

1
2

II.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This lawsuit challenges, among other things, the legality of the Controlled Application

3

Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), created by Defendant U.S. Citizenship and

4

Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in 2008, Dkt. 47 ¶ 55, and related “extreme vetting” initiatives

5

instituted in Executive Orders 13769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (“First EO”), and 13780, 82 Fed. Reg.

6

13209 (“Second EO”) id. ¶¶ 18, 138-141. Plaintiffs allege that CARRP implements an extra-

7

statutory internal vetting program that discriminates on the basis of religion and/or national

8

origin and indefinitely delays or pretextually denies immigration benefits to statutorily-qualified

9

applicants. Id. ¶¶ 35-51, 62-76. The Court certified two nationwide classes of individuals

10

subject to CARRP or a successor “extreme vetting” program: one made up of individuals who

11

have applied for adjustment of status (“Adjustment Class”), and the other of individuals who

12

have applied for naturalization (“Naturalization Class”). Dkt. 69 at 31.

13

In the course of their document productions to Plaintiffs, Defendants have produced four

14

volumes of privilege logs. Declaration of David A. Perez (“Perez Decl.”), Exs. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

15

These logs purported to invoke the law enforcement privilege for hundreds of documents, which

16

Defendants have completely withheld or redacted (often times heavily). For example,

17

Defendants withheld or substantially redacted: (i) a 2009 USCIS memorandum regarding the

18

vetting and adjudication of CARRP cases (in Volume 1); (ii) the CARRP independent study

19

course (in Volume 2); (iii) the USCIS Handbook National Background Identity and Security

20

Checks Operating Procedures (in Volume 3); and (iv) the national security branch organizational

21

charts (in Volume 4). Though these documents are obviously very different from one another,

22

and even have different dates of creation, Defendants (for the most part) apply the same

23

boilerplate language to these and hundreds of others:

24

Document contains information that identifies internal case
handling procedures on the adjudication of an immigration benefit
application, to include criteria used to evaluate an applicant’s
eligibility for the immigration benefit, which might reveal the
bases used to determine eligibility by agency officials, and if

25
26

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 3
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 8 of 17

1

disclosed will risk circumvention or evasion of the law; Document
contains information about the types of information provided to
law enforcement agencies in order to request information
necessary to adjudicate an immigration benefit application which
might reveal sensitive internal law enforcement case handling
procedures and if disclosed will risk circumvention or evasion of
the law.

2
3
4
5

See, e.g., Perez Decl., Ex. 1. For instance, Defendants use similar language regarding a USCIS

6

Memorandum dated July 14, 2016, and a USCIS Supplemental Guidance on CARRP Cases from

7

July 2011, both in Volume 1. Id. (DEF-00001095 and DEF-00001051). And alarmingly,

8

Defendants apply similar boilerplate language to two documents in Volume 2 (DF-00002305 and

9

DF00002209) without actually stating that they are invoking the law enforcement privilege. Id.,

10

Ex. 2. Despite applying the privilege to so many documents, Defendants never identify the

11

agency official(s) invoking the privilege, let alone provide a declaration from that official that

12

meets the requisite criteria.

13

On January 10, 2018, Plaintiffs requested a meet and confer to discuss the deficiencies

14

with Defendants’ privilege assertions. Id. Ex. 5 (1/10/2018 Perez E-mail to White). On January

15

19, 2018, the parties conferred by phone. During that call, Plaintiffs asked Defendants to

16

identify the individual invoking the law enforcement privilege, and to provide more detailed and

17

specific narratives, in accordance with the standard governing that privilege. Plaintiffs even read

18

from a case outlining the elements of the law enforcement privilege. Id., ¶ 10. Defendants

19

refused to identify any agency official who reviewed the withholdings and, in fact, would not

20

even confirm whether an agency official reviewed the withholdings in the first place. During a

21

follow up meet and confer on January 26, 2018, Defendants reiterated that they would not agree

22

to identify the agency official invoking the privilege, and that their privilege logs were sufficient.

23

Id. They claimed that they were not required to provide an affidavit from a certifying official, or

24

to otherwise satisfy the elements of the law enforcement privilege, unless or until a court ordered

25

them to do so. In other words, it does not appear that anyone at the relevant agencies reviewed

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 4
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 9 of 17

1

these documents, much less specifically invoked the law enforcement privilege as the law

2

requires.

3

On January 31, Defendants produced revised privilege logs, which contain the same

4

flaws as the original logs (the revised logs are attached to the Perez Declaration). For instance,

5

these revised logs still fail to identify the agency official invoking the privilege, and they do not

6

explain how disclosure subject to the Stipulated Protective Order the Court entered in this case

7

would somehow threaten the law enforcement interests at stake. See Perez Decl., Ex. 6

8

(1/31/2018 Carilli Letter to Plaintiffs).

9

Plaintiffs have asked Defendants to produce these documents unredacted because

10

Defendants have not properly invoked the law enforcement privilege, and have not established

11

the three elements required to sustain that privilege. Plaintiffs have also requested that

12

Defendants comply with the clear standard governing the law enforcement privilege for each

13

document over which they assert it, by providing an adequately detailed declaration from the

14

head of the agency invoking the privilege, and a proper privilege log identifying each document

15

for which the privilege is asserted, the agency official asserting the privilege (with accompanying

16

declaration), and the basis for the privilege. Defendants refuse. The parties are at an impasse.

17
18

III.
A.

ARGUMENT

Legal Standard Governing the Law Enforcement Privilege

19

Rule 26 requires that a privilege log “describe the nature of the documents,

20

communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that,

21

without revealing the information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess

22

the claim.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). The information required to assess the privilege

23

claim depends on what privilege is being asserted.

24

Here, Defendants have identified the law enforcement privilege as the basis for

25

withholding and redacting hundreds of otherwise responsive documents. As this Court has

26

already made clear, to properly invoke the law enforcement privilege, the government must
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 5
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 10 of 17

1

satisfy three elements: (1) there must be a formal claim of privilege by the head of the

2

department having control over the requested information; (2) assertion of the privilege must be

3

based on actual personal consideration by that official; and (3) the information for which the

4

privilege is claimed must be specified, with an explanation as to why it properly falls within the

5

scope of the privilege. Dkt. 98 at 3; see also Conan v. City of Fontana, No. EDCV 16–1261–

6

KK, 2017 WL 2874623, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (same); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175,

7

176-77 (D.D.C. 1998) aff’d, 203 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same).

8

The privilege is qualified rather than absolute, which means that even if the elements

9

above are satisfied, “[t]he public interest in nondisclosure must be balanced against the need of a

10

particular litigant for access to the privileged information.” In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 272

11

(D.C. Cir. 1988). A “district court has considerable leeway” in striking that balance. Id. At all

12

times the burden is on the government to show the information falls within the scope of the

13

privilege. In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 236 F. Supp. 3d 150, 166 (D.D.C. 2017).2 The

14

existence of a protective order that safeguards confidential information is also a relevant factor

15

that courts may consider when striking this balance. Id. at 167 (Despite law enforcement

16

privilege, “disclosure of these materials simply does not carry the risks the Government

17

anticipates. First and foremost, all the materials to be disclosed will be covered by the protective

18

order in the underlying litigation.”).3

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

When striking the balance between disclosure and non-disclosure (assuming the three
threshold elements have been met), courts may consider the following ten factors: (1) the extent
2
See also Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (“This balancing test has been
moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.”).
3
Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., C 06-00545 WHA, 2009 WL 5069133, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
2009), vacated and remanded on other grounds by, 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding “law enforcement privilege
balancing test militates in favor of authorizing disclosure” given “safeguards, such as a protective order”);
MacNamara v. City of New York, 249 F.R.D. 70, 88-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (ordering disclosure, even after finding that
law enforcement privilege applied, because “disclosure of the documents subject to the restrictions of the Protective
Orders will sufficiently mitigate the risks, if any, that may arise from disclosure”); Nat’l Cong. for Puerto Rican
Rights ex rel. Perez v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D. 88, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering disclosure, despite both law
enforcement and “official information” privileges, “in light of the carefully crafted protective order already in
place”).

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 6
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 11 of 17

1

to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the

2

government information; (2) the impact on persons who have given information of having their

3

identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent

4

program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual

5

data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking discovery is an actual or potential

6

defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the

7

incident in question; (6) whether the investigation has been completed; (7) whether any

8

interdepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8)

9

whether the plaintiff’s suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the

10

information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) the

11

importance of the information sought to the plaintiff’s case. Tuite, 181 F.R.D. at 176-77; Bernat

12

v. City of California City, No. 1:10–cv–00305 OWW JLT, 2010 WL 4008361, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

13

2010) (applying the 10-factor test to the analysis of the law enforcement privilege).

14

No single factor is dispositive. In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 236 F. Supp. 3d at

15

160. “Additionally, in the context of the law enforcement privilege, ‘need’ is ‘an elastic concept

16

that does not turn only on the availability of the information from an alternative source.’” Id.

17

(quoting Tuite, 98 F.3d at 1417).

18

B.

Defendants Have Not Satisfied the Elements of the Law Enforcement Privilege.

19

Defendants have fallen far short of what the law requires to invoke the law enforcement

20

privilege. Accordingly, the Court should order Defendants to produce (subject to the Stipulated

21

Protective Order) unredacted copies of the documents for which they have improperly invoked

22

the law enforcement privilege.

23

Moving forward, the Court should make clear that Defendants’ mere reference to the law

24

enforcement privilege does not come close to satisfying their burden. To properly assert any

25

current or prospective invocation of the law enforcement privilege, Defendants must submit a

26

declaration from the head of the department formally invoking the privilege. Such declaration
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 7
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 12 of 17

1

must make clear that the agency official has personally reviewed the documents and the Parties’

2

Stipulated Protective Order, has concluded that disclosure subject to the protective order would

3

threaten law enforcement interests, and an thorough explanation of the basis for that belief. In

4

addition to the declaration, Defendants must submit a proper privilege log with narratives that

5

identify the head of the department invoking the privilege, and adequately describe the basis for

6

invoking the privilege in light of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Simply invoking the

7

law enforcement privilege using general and boilerplate terms is not enough.

8

Defendants’ failure to produce a supporting declaration and proper privilege log violates

9

not only the law governing that privilege, but also Rule 26, because Plaintiffs cannot assess the

10

propriety of Defendants’ numerous invocations of the law enforcement privilege if Defendants

11

refuse to provide the basic information necessary to invoke it in the first place. First, Plaintiffs

12

cannot determine whether the right agency official invoked the privilege (or any agency official,

13

for that matter) if Defendants refuse to identify the agency official who purportedly invoked this

14

privilege after personally reviewing the documents. And given Defendants’ refusal to disclose

15

whether an agency official actually reviewed each of these documents in the first place, it is

16

likely that the head of the department has not reviewed these documents at all—meaning there

17

has been no official invocation of the privilege.

18

Second, Plaintiffs are unable even to determine whether any of these documents would

19

qualify for the privilege because Defendants’ explanations for asserting the privilege are so

20

incomplete. Again, to invoke this privilege, such an explanation must be included in a sworn

21

declaration, and later included in a privilege log. So far, all Defendants have produced is a

22

privilege log that contains largely the same boilerplate language for all these documents—even

23

those that are clearly very different in nature. At a minimum, such explanations must identify

24

with particularity how disclosure subject to a protective order would interfere with an ongoing

25

investigation. See MacNamara v. City of New York, 249 F.R.D. 70, 88-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

26

(ordering disclosure, even after finding that law enforcement privilege applied, because
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 8
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 13 of 17

1

“disclosure of the documents subject to the restrictions of the Protective Orders will sufficiently

2

mitigate the risks, if any, that may arise from disclosure”).

3

Specific and adequate narratives, supported by a sworn declaration, are crucial to

4

determine whether Defendants are properly invoking the privilege, and whether the privilege

5

should be overruled (even if properly invoked) because Plaintiffs’ interests in disclosure

6

outweigh the government’s interests in non-disclosure. For instance, in Maria Del Socorro

7

Quintero Perez, CY v. United States, the court held that the defendants failed to make a threshold

8

showing for privilege. No. 13cv1417-WQH-BGS, 2016 WL 362508, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29,

9

2016). There, the government submitted a declaration from a retired U.S. Border Patrol Chief to

10

support their assertion that two documents in their privilege log contained sensitive law

11

enforcement information. Id. The court found the declaration insufficient because it failed to

12

adequately address the harm that would result from disclosure, and provide specific information

13

about how disclosure of specific documents would threaten specific governmental interests. Id.

14

at *4. Further, the declaration did not state whether the declarant had personally reviewed the

15

records at issue. Id. And it failed “to describe how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted

16

protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy

17

interests.” Id.; see also Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 230–31 (S.D. Cal. 1993)

18

(citing Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987)); Bernat, 2010 WL

19

4008361, at *6 (finding insufficient a declaration that failed to indicate that the declarant

20

considered this particular privilege or to show why the privilege applied to each request except in

21

the most general terms). Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to disclose the

22

documents subject to a protective order. Maria Del Socorro Quintero Perez, 2016 WL 362508,

23

at *4.

24

In the past, Defendants have submitted facially defective declarations that purported to

25

substantiate the law enforcement privilege. For instance, in their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion

26

to compel last fall, Defendants submitted a declaration from James W. McCament, Acting
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 9
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 14 of 17

1

Director of USCIS, to support their assertion of the law enforcement privilege over certain

2

documents relating to the class list. Dkt. 94-5.4 But the McCament Declaration never states

3

whether McCament personally reviewed the records at issue. Nor does the declaration identify

4

specific information about how disclosure of specific documents would threaten specific

5

governmental interests. Additionally, the declaration does not describe how disclosure subject to

6

the parties’ stipulated protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant

7

governmental or privacy interests. Based in part on these omissions, the Court ordered

8

Defendants to produce a class list. Defendants’ past reliance on a defective declaration raises

9

serious questions as to whether they have properly invoked the law enforcement privilege for

10

these hundreds of additional documents. Even worse, Defendants have yet to produce the bulk

11

of their discovery, and Plaintiffs are concerned that Defendants will again rely heavily on the

12

privilege in their subsequent productions.

13

Ensuring that Defendants clearly establish all three elements of the law enforcement

14

privilege is particularly important because the privilege is qualified—it requires the Court to

15

weigh the government’s interests against the adverse party’s needs. See Tuite, 181 F.R.D. at

16

176-77. If Defendants are unable or unwilling to submit an affidavit detailing each instance in

17

which they are invoking the law enforcement privilege, that is a clear indicator that they have not

18

established the elements necessarily to properly rely on that privilege. Thus, if no showing is

19

made through a declaration or affidavit, the court should order full and unredacted disclosure of

20

these documents. Maria Del Socorro Quintero Perez, 2016 WL 362508, at *2.

21
22

IV.

CONCLUSION

Defendants have not made a threshold showing for the law enforcement privilege.

23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order Defendants to produce the

24

withheld material without redactions. For any prospective invocations of this privilege, the

25
26

4
Defendants have made clear that they are not relying on the McCament Declaration for the law
enforcement privilege assertions in their logs, which suggests McCament has not reviewed any of these documents.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 10
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 15 of 17

1

Court should make clear that Defendants must submit a declaration from the head of the

2

department formally invoking the privilege, and containing an adequate explanation for the basis

3

of the privilege in light of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Defendants must also provide

4

a proper privilege log that will allow Plaintiffs to evaluate and if necessary challenge any such

5

invocations.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DATED: February 8, 2018
s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
sahmed@aclusocal.org
s/Matt Adams
s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid
Matt Adams #28287
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice)
Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin
634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

24
25

s/ Harry H. Schneider, Jr.
Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404
s/ Nicholas P. Gellert
Nicholas P. Gellert #18041
s/ David A. Perez
David A. Perez #43959
s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com
NGellert@perkinscoie.com
DPerez@perkinscoie.com
LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice)
Trina Realmuto
Kristin Macleod-Ball
American Immigration Council
100 Summer St., 23rd Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (857) 305-3600
Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org
Email: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 11
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 16 of 17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

s/Hugh Handeyside
Hugh Handeyside #39792
s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org

s/Emily Chiang
Emily Chiang #50517
ACLU of Washington Foundation
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Echiang@aclu-wa.org

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 12
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109 Filed 02/08/18 Page 17 of 17

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3
4
5
6

The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the
foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE via
the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such filing to all counsel of record
herein.
DATED this 8th day of February, 2018, at Seattle, Washington.

7
8

By: s/David A. Perez
Laura K. Hennessey, 43959
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: DPerez@perkinscoie.com

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1
138389223.6

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109-1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 4

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE

DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094138480355.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109-1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 2 of 4

1

THE COURT, having considered Defendants’ Motion to Compel Law Enforcement

2

Documents (Dkt. #__), the papers submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the

3

motion, the files and pleadings in this case, and being fully advised in the premises, now,

4

therefore, it is hereby

5

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. For every document that

6

Defendants assert the law enforcement privilege, Defendants must provide Plaintiffs with an

7

affidavit or declaration from the head of the department (1) affirming that the agency generated

8

or collected the materials at issue and maintained its confidentiality; (2) stating that the official

9

has personally reviewed the materials in question; (3) identifying specific government interests

10

that would be threatened by disclosure to plaintiff and/or plaintiffs’ counsel; and (4) describing

11

how disclosure subject to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order would create a substantial risk

12

of harm to government interests. Within 21 days from the issuance of this order, Defendants

13

shall either produce such affidavits or declarations for any documents to which Defendants have

14

already asserted the law enforcement privilege, or produce unredacted versions of the

15

documents.

16

It is further ORDERED that within 21 days of this order, Defendants must produce

17

revised privilege logs that clearly identify the agency official who has personally reviewed the

18

material and invoked the privilege, and which explain in detail how disclosure of the requested

19

information, subject to the Stipulated Protective Order, would implicate a specific law

20

enforcement interest.

21

DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2018.

22
23

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 2
138480355.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109-1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 3 of 4

1

DATED this 8th day of February 2018.

2

Presented by:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
s/Matt Adams
s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid
Matt Adams #28287
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice)
Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin
634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

s/Hugh Handeyside
Hugh Handeyside #39792
s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org

s/Harry H. Schneider, Jr.
Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404
s/Nicholas P. Gellert
Nicholas P. Gellert #18041
s/David A. Perez
David A. Perez #43959
s/Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com
NGellert@perkinscoie.com
DPerez@perkinscoie.com
LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice)
National Immigration Project
of the National Lawyers Guild
14 Beacon St., Suite 602
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 227-9727
Facsimile: (617) 227-5495
trina@nipnlg.org
kristin@nipnlg.org
s/Emily Chiang
Emily Chiang #50517
ACLU of Washington Foundation
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Echiang@aclu-wa.org

26
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL RE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 3
138480355.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 109-1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 4 of 4

1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3

The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the

4

foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE

5

LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send

6

notice of such filing to all counsel of record herein.

7

DATED this 8th day of February, 2018, at Seattle, Washington.

8

By: s/David A. Perez
David A Perez, 43959
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: DPerez@perkinscoie.com

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1
138480355.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000