Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 6 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 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 14 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 15 No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT ON COURT’S ORDER ON LCR 37 SUBMISSION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 23 & 24 Defendants. 16 Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, submit this status report on the status of 17 any additional agreement between the parties reported to the Court on January 13, 2018, ECF 18 No. 114. 1 19 1. RFPs 23 and 24 20 Defendants clarify their methodology to search for potentially responsive documents on 21 each custodian’s individual network drive(s), and computer hard drive(s), if any. To the extent it 22 is not possible for Defendants, using their own information technology search capabilities, to 23 search for the agreed search terms in the contents of the custodians’ individual network drive(s) 24 and computer hard drive(s), if any, Defendants will use the same search and collection 25 methodology used by Defendants, and consented to by Plaintiffs, for the remainder of the First 26 27 28 1 At 11:27 a.m., PST, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiffs would file a separate report with the Court, rather than file a joint status report. Consequently, Defendants file this status report for themselves only. DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 1 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 6 1 RFPs. As stated in Defendants’ October 6, 2017 letter to Plaintiffs, custodians, with attorney 2 supervision, will designate locations (e.g., folders, sub-folders, particular files) to identify 3 potentially responsive documents for collection, processing, and upload into our review platform. 4 If Defendants were required to apply the search terms listed in Appendix A, ECF No. 114-1, to 5 each custodians’ individual network drive(s) and computer hard drive(s), then, at least for United 6 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), all of the contents of the relevant 7 drive(s) (regardless of responsiveness) would need to be collected, processed, transferred to the 8 Department of Justice, and uploaded into the Department of Justice’s review platform in order to 9 be searched. That effort would create a substantial time and cost burden for Defendants that 10 would be inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). As stated previously, most 11 recently during the hearing on February 8, 2018, Defendants DHS and USCIS have within their 12 respective agencies limited search capabilities and lack ESI processing capability. Defendants 13 therefore reserve their rights to move for a protective order if required to apply search terms to 14 the entirety of all designated custodians’ individual network drives and hard drives, rather than to 15 proceed in accordance with the parties’ previously agreed upon approach. 16 2. Production Timeline 17 As detailed in the attached declarations from DHS and USCIS, 2 Defendants are not today 18 in a position to guarantee, in good faith, that they could comply with the discovery schedule 19 proposed by Plaintiffs, as Defendants do not believe it is possible to meet those deadlines. 20 Further, because there remain a significant number of unknowns, despite Defendants’ consistent 21 efforts to ascertain the burden of complying with these requests, including, but not limited to, the 22 volume of classified material to be collected and the volume of documents that will be 23 determined to be responsive (and require privilege review) to the First Set of Requests for 24 Production (excluding documents potentially responsive to RFP Nos. 23 and 24), Defendants are 25 unable at this time to propose an alternate production schedule. As detailed in the attached 26 27 28 2 Declaration of David J. Palmer, Ex. A; Declaration of Keith A. Jones, Ex. B; Declaration of Stephen P. Bell, Jr., Ex. C. DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 2 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 6 1 declarations, Defendants are zealously exploring various options for the expeditious review and 2 production of documents in this case, and will do their utmost to comply with any orders of this 3 Court, to the best of their ability. 4 Defendants, however, will not be in a position to realistically evaluate the time required 5 to review and produce responsive records until the all the searches have been run, the results are 6 transferred to the Department of Justice review platform, and the search results are further 7 refined. Once those steps have been accomplished, Defendants will then have an accurate 8 understanding of the scope of the effort required, and can more reliably discern the amount of 9 time it would take to complete review and production. Defendants, therefore, respectfully 10 submit that the Court should refrain from entering an order setting a discovery schedule at this 11 time, but rather direct Defendants to submit, by Friday, February 23, 2018, a status report on 12 their efforts to collect materials responsive to RFP Nos. 23, 24, and 40 to 44, using the agreed 13 search parameters and to transfer those materials to the Department of Justice for upload into the 14 review platform. Separately, Defendants intend to continue to produce responsive documents 15 every two weeks. 16 To date, pursuant to the parties’ currently agreed upon search and collection 17 methodology, DHS and USCIS have identified approximately 354,647 documents potentially 18 responsive to RFP Nos. 23, 24, and 40 to 44. 3 See Ex. A at ¶ 41, Ex. B at ¶ 47. This volume 19 will expand after DHS and USCIS complete the search and collection of documents from DHS 20 custodian e-mails and DHS and USCIS classified networks, custodian individual network and 21 hard drives, and after the responsiveness review of the remainder of the potentially responsive 22 documents from the First Set of RFPs is complete. To complete the review and production of all 23 currently outstanding discovery will, Defendants expect, take at least 6 months from present. As 24 Defendants proceed with the collection and review process, if it appears that the review and 25 26 27 28 3 Of those documents, approximately 140,951 are from DHS, which, as explained in Exhibit A, does not have the ability to globally de-duplicate search results using their own tools. DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 3 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 6 1 production process will require either less or more time, Defendants will, of course, notify the 2 Court. 3 3. Defendants reserve the right to raise any objections to discovery, or seek any 4 appropriate relief available, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants also do not 5 waive their ability to seek further review of this Court’s discovery orders, or reconsideration 6 should circumstances change. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dated: February 16, 2018 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation TIMOTHY M. BELSAN Deputy Chief, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit 16 17 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward S. White EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0868 Tel: (202) 616-9131 Fax: (202) 305-7000 Email: edward.s.white@usdoj.gov AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit 18 19 20 JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. Trial Attorney, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit 21 22 Counsel for Defendants 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 4 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 6 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 16, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with 3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to 4 the following CM/ECF participants: Harry H. Schneider, Jr., Esq. Nicholas P. Gellert, Esq. David A. Perez, Esq. Kathryn Reddy, Esq. Perkins Coie L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Ste. 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PH: 359-8000 FX: 359-9000 Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com Email: NGellert@perkinscoie.com Email: DPerez@perkinscoie.com Email: KReddy@perkinscoie.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Matt Adams, Esq. Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104 PH: 957-8611 FX: 587-4025 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org E-mail: glenda@nwirp.org 14 15 16 17 18 19 Emily Chiang, Esq. ACLU of Washington Foundation 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624-2184 E-mail: Echiang@aclu-wa.org 20 21 22 23 Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq. ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5211 Facsimile: (213) 997-5297 E-mail: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 5 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 117 Filed 02/16/18 Page 6 of 6 1 Stacy Tolchin, Esq. Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 E-mail: Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com 2 3 4 5 6 Trina Realmuto, Esq. Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq. National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon St., Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 227-9727 Facsimile: (617) 227-5495 E-mail: trina@nipnlg.org E-mail: kristin@nipnlg.org 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hugh Handeyside, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2616 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org E-mail: hhandeyside@aclu.org E-mail: hshamsi@aclu.org 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 /s/ Edward S. White EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORT - 6 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138572418.2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P O Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 17 EXHIBIT A Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 17 The Honorable Richard A. Jones UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 23 AND 24 Defendants. I, David J. Palmer, do hereby declare and state: 1. I am the Chief of Staff for the Of?ce of the General Counsel (OGC) in the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In this capacity, I supervise attorneys and other professional staff who are coordinating efforts at DHS Headquarters (DHS HQ) to respond to court orders and discovery requests in this case, as well as in other litigation in which DHS HQ is a party or has equities. I make the following statements based on my personal knowledge and upon information furnished to me in the course of my of?cial duties. 2. After consideration of information available to me in my capacity as Chief of Staff for DHS OGC, the matters contained in this declaration are based upon my understanding of the case of Wagafe, et al., v. Trump, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094, DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - (2:1 Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 17 which is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and the searches undertaken at DHS HQ, which were undertaken on the instructions of DHS OGC attorneys. 3. I am aware that Requests for Production 23 and 24 from Plaintiffs? First Requests for Production to Defendants seek documents (1) referring or relating to US. Citizenship and Immigration Services? Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP), and (2) referring or relating to Executive Orders 13,769 and 13,780. 4. I have reviewed the following documents: a. Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ECF #47 (Apr. 4. 2017); b. Plaintiffs? First Requests for Production to Defendants (dated Aug. 1, 2017); c. Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Documents, ECF 91 (Sept. 28, 2017); d. Defendants? Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel, ECF #94 (Oct. 10, 2017); e. Plaintiffs? Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents, ECF #95 (Oct. 13, 2017); f. This court?s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Documents, ECF #98 (Oct. 19, 2017); g. The parties? LCR 37 Submission Regarding Requests for Production Nos. 23 24, ECF #103 (Dec. 8, 2017); h. The court?s Order on LCR 37 Submission Regarding Requests for Production Nos. 23 24, ECF #104 (Jan. 10, 2018); i. Plaintiffs? Submission Regarding Discovery Dispute Relating to Requests for Production 23 and 24, ECF #105 (Feb. 6, 2018); j. Defendants? Statement on Court?s Order on LCR 37 Submission Regarding Requests for Production 23 24, ECF #107 (Feb. 6, 2018); DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 2 (2: 1 Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 17 k. The parties? Joint Status Report on Court?s Order on LCR 37 Submission Regarding Requests for Production Nos. 23 24, ECF #114 (Feb. 13, 2018). 5. I understand that on August 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs in this case requested certain documents from DHS HQ, including: 0 Request for Production 23 RF 23): All Documents referring or relating to any consideration of or reference to CARRP during the planning, drafting, or issuing of the First and Second E03. 0 Request for Production 24 (RFP 24): All Documents referring or relating to ?extreme vetting? or any other screening, vetting, or adjudication program, policy, or procedure connected to the First and Second EOs. This request includes, but is not limited to, programs that reference, relate to, or expand upon CARRP. DHS HQ provided objections and responses to this request. 6. I further understand that in RFPs 23 and 24, the phrase ?First and Second refers to Executive Order 13769: ?Protecting the Nation for Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,? 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017), and Executive Order 13780: ?Protecting the Nation for Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,? 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017). 7. I am aware that Defendants raised the lack of an actual connection between CARRP and the First and Second EOs, as well as privilege objections, in objecting to provide a response to RFPs 23 and 24 concerning the First and Second EOs. I am also aware that Plaintiffs? disagreed with Defendants? assertions and sought this court?s intervention by ?ling Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Documents on September 28, 2017. 8. I am aware that, on October 19, 2017, this court granted the portion of Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel that addressed Defendants? assertion of the deliberative process privilege as an objection to producing documents related to the First and Second EOs, ruling that Defendants needed to assert the privilege by logging any such privileged DECLARATION or DAVID J. PALM ER - 3 (2: 1 Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 17 document on a privilege log. I also am aware that, in granting in part that portion of Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel, this court recognized that intruding upon the Executive with a demand for discovery from the President is a matter of last resort, so the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss alternative custodians and non-custodial sources of information relating to the First and Second EOs. 9. I am aware that when the parties met and conferred concerning the identification of alternative custodians and non-custodial sources related to the First and Second EOs, the parties continued to disagree about the scope of discovery related to the First and Second EOs, which had been left unresolved by this court?s order on Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel. I also am aware that this led the parties to again seek this court?s intervention through the parties? ?ling of an LCR 37 Submission Regarding Requests for Production Nos. 23 24. Speci?cally, I am aware that, contrary to Plaintiffs? expansive view that discovery was proper regarding any screening, vetting, or adjudication of immigration bene?t applications affected by the First and Second EOs, Defendants asserted (given Plaintiffs? operative allegations and claims and this court?s previous opinions) that discovery was not proper into the First and Second EOs to the extent not related to CARRP or a similar, successor program. 10. I am aware that on January 10, 2018, the court issued an order resolving the parties? LCR 37 submission, in which this court observed that the scope of discovery is necessarily broad and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding alternative custodians, non-custodial sources, search terms, and other means of review to respond to RFPs 23 and 24. 11. I am aware that, upon meeting and conferring as required by this court?s order of January 10, 2018, the parties failed to agree to the scope of search terms, custodians, non-custodial sources, and production schedule. 12. I have reviewed: a. Briefs ?led by the parties on February 6, 2018, addressing their discovery disputes on February 6, 2018; and DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 4 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 6 of 17 b. The joint status report ?led with the court on February 13, 2018, which states that ?The parties have agreed in principle on the search and collection methodology for 23 and 24, contingent on? ?whether the parties can reach an agreement on a production timeline for documents responsive to 23 and 24, Plaintiffs? First Requests for Production to Defendants (?First RF and Plaintiffs? Second Requests for Production to Defendants (?Second ECF #114, 1 5 [sic, misnumbered, should be numbered 114]. 13. I am aware that this court reconvened the hearing telephonjcally on February 14, 2018, and that the parties are to ?le a status report regarding the production deadline schedule by no later than 2:00 pm PST on February 16, 2018. 14. I also have been informed and am aware that Defendants? counsel at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has informed both Plaintiffs and this court, that, because of the extraordinary volume of potentially responsive materials and the agency?s limited resources to search, collect, transfer, process, and review those potentially responsive materials for responsiveness and privilege, the burden of the discovery sought by Plaintiffs in RFPs 23 and 24 is unreasonable, and the agency cannot reasonably or meaningfully complete the necessary searches, collection, transfers, processing, and reviews of those potentially responsive materials in the production timeframes being demanded by Plaintiffs. 15. I am aware of the custodians, non-custodial sources, search terms, and date ranges that DHS HQ has agreed to apply, as well as the issues still in dispute, most notably the production timeline for RFPs 23 and 24 and Plaintiffs First and Second Requests for Production, as well as for any other discovery. I also am aware of the limited resources?both personnel and technology?of the agency in responding to the discovery requests at issue, and the exceptional burden imposed on the agency in searching, collecting, transferring, processing, and reviewing such potentially responsive materials. DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 5 (2: have proposed, 1 have taken the following steps: DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 6 Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 7 of 17 16. Nevertheless, in an effort to meet the production timeline that plaintiffs a. Upon learning the potential volume of documents to be reviewed pursuant to the search parameters in the February 13, 2018, joint status report and Plaintiffs? proposed timeline for production, I consulted with Acting General Counsel, and DHS OGC executive and budget of?cers regarding the possibility of engaging contract attorneys to assist with the review of documents. I directed my subordinates in the Of?ce of the General Counsel to examine existing contract vehicles, and to consult with the DHS Of?ce of the Chief Financial Of?cer to determine if funds are available to facilitate a surge of contract attorneys to staff discovery in this case. b. I also consulted with to determine whether DHS could use a D01 contract vehicle to support a surge of contract attorneys. Based upon feedback received from DOJ, DHS estimates that this matter would require hiring up to 30 contract attorneys or paralegals to review solely unclassi?ed documents. The precise number of staff required to conduct the document review will depend upon the ultimate volume of data to be reviewed. Based on prior experience and the various steps that must be accomplished, DHS estimates that it would take between 5 to 8 weeks to execute an inter?agency agreement, and clear and on-board contract personnel for purposes of working on this matter. c. We have estimated the cost of employing contract personnel to perform these duties could be in excess of $1.3 million. (1. For Fiscal Year 2017, OGC was appropriated $19,298,000, and is a separately appropriated program within the appropriations account for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM). Congress has not enacted a Fiscal Year 2018 appropriations for DHS yet, and so, we are unsure of what our 2018 full year budget will be. The President?s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request however, requested $18,501,000. To move funds from other programs within the Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 8 of 17 OSEM account to OGC requires a notice to Congress 15 days prior to moving the money. To move money to OGC from other DHS appropriation accounts requires a notice to Congress 30 days prior to transferring the money. 6. I also met with DHS senior leadership to discuss possible reassigmnents of other DHS staff outside of the Of?ce of General Counsel, to assist with reviewing documents. DHS estimates that, if such reassigmnents are approved, it would take a minimum of approximately 3-4 weeks to get personnel in place to begin reviewing documents. That time would be required to advertise the positions, interview and clear candidates, obtain of?ce space, and equip the personnel with computers. 17. DHS HQ is committed to reviewing documents as expeditiously as possible and to using our best efforts to meet the production timeline that Plaintiffs have proposed. However, in light of the fact that we still do not know the volume of documents to be reviewed, how many reviewers will be required to conduct the document review and production, or the ultimate cost of staf?ng this project, DHS acknowledges that these unknown variables may impact or impede DHS ability to meet those deadlines. DHS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 18. For the requests at issue here RFPs 23 and 24, and Tests 1, 2, and 3, all described further below), DHS HQ Information Technology (IT) personnel are able to run searches based on terms, phrases, and Boolean strings by custodian over a speci?ed date range against (1) DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems, (2) DHS classi?ed e- mail systems, (3) DHS HQ custodian?s personal server drives and local hard drives, and (4) DHS HQ non-custodial shared server drives. However, each of these systems has limited searching, collecting, and processing capabilities, which necessitates collecting overbroad amounts of returned data that must be transferred to other technological systems at eDiscovery lab for further processing, de-duplication, culling, and ingestion into a review platform to enable responsiveness and privilege review. Because DHS HQ IT personnel have completed test searches described below against the DHS DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 7 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 9 of 17 HQ unclassi?ed e-mail systems, I will describe how those searches are run on the DHS HQ unclassi?ed e-mail systems. DHS Unclassi?ed E-Mail Systems 19. For the requests at issue here and the tests described below, DHS HQ Information Technology (IT) personnel are able to run searches based on terms, phrases, and Boolean strings by custodian over a speci?ed date range against the joumaling function of DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems. That joumaling function retains all e-mail sent or received by DHS HQ custodians with e-mail accounts on DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems, and searching the joumaling function is available for the time period relevant to the requests at issue here for both current and former DH HQ of?cials and employees. 20. DHS HQ IT personnel are able to report the number of resulting hits (6- mail matches, which also may include one or more attachments)l by custodian, as well as the ?le sizes of the resulting hits by custodian, in searching the joumaling function of DHS unclassi?ed e-mails systems as described in the previous paragraph. However, a limitation of DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems is that those systems do not have the capability to de-duplicate hits between custodians searched, so, for example, an e-mail match that was sent to three different custodians being searched would be counted in each of those custodians? resulting number of hits and ?le sizes. Only by transferring the data resulting from such searches to another technological platform is such de-duplication possible to report unique hits because DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems do not have this capability. 21. The searches of DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems described below, as well as the number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian resulting from those searches, were run by DHS HQ IT personnel against the joumaling function of DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems as described above. A ?hit? is an e-mail (including its attachments) that matches the search term(s), phrase(s), and/0r Boolean string used to search a speci?ed date range of a custodian?s unclassi?ed e-mail account, and each ?hit? may include one or more attachments that are not counted separately. DECLARATION OF J. PALMER - 8 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 10 of 17 DATA THAT DHS HO HAS CONSENTED TO SEARCH 22. I am aware that, after this court held a hearing on the discovery disputes on February 8, 2018, the parties met and conferred leading to an ?agree[ment] in principle 39 66 on the search and collection methodology for 23 and 24, contingent on whether the parties can reach an agreement on a production timeline for documents responsive to 23 and 24, Plaintiffs? First Requests for Production to Defendants (?First and Plaintiffs? Second Requests for Production to Defendants (?Second ECF #114, 1 5 [sic, rnisnumbered, should be numbered 114]. That is re?ected in the parties? joint status report ?led on February 13, 2018, which includes an Exhibit l/Appendix A that details the data, including custodians, non-custodial sources, search terms, and date ranges, that DHS HQ has consented to search. The agreed-upon search parameters are also set forth below for ease of referencepersonnel are searching e-mail accounts, by custodian, of John Kelly, Elaine Duke, Kirstjen Nielsen, Joseph Maher, Gene Hamilton, and Chip Fulghum using the search terms OR ?Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program? OR ?Articulable Link? OR ?Decon?ict*? OR ?Known or Suspected Terrorist? OR OR ?National Security Concern? OR ?National Security Indicator? OR ?Non National Security? OR ?Non-Known or Suspected Terrorist? OR OR Activities? OR Concern? OR Hit? OR Indicator? from November 9, 2016, through March 6, 2017personnel are searching e-mail accounts, by custodian, of John Kelly, Elaine Duke, Kirstjen Nielsen, Joseph Maher, Gene Hamilton, Chip Fulghum, Olivia Troye, Teresa Downey, Frank Wuco, John Latta, Victoria Lester-Saura, Michael Scardaville, Briana Petyo, and John Dermody using the search terms ?13769? OR ?13780? OR ?Continuous Immigration Vetting? OR ?Extreme Vetting? OR ?Interview Expansion? OR ?Interview Waiver? OR ?Recurrent Vetting? OR ?Section 4? OR ?Section 5? OR ?Uniform DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 9 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 11 of 17 Screening? OR ?Uniform Vetting? OR ?Wicklander? OR ?Enhanced Communication Course? OR ?Code 5? OR AND ?Identity Veri?cation?) OR (?Livescan? AND ?Identity Verification?) OR (?Application Support Center? AND ?Identity Verification?) OR ((?Protecting the Nation? OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry? OR ?Executive Order? OR AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate* OR ?national security? OR suspend* OR naturaliz* OR adjust* OR ?green card?)) from November 9, 2016, to present.2 c. For RFPs 23 and 24, DHS HQ IT personnel also are pulling down all documents residing in the DHS HQ identi?ed non-custodial source, which is a Section of the DHS Executive Order Task Force SharePoint site related to Section 5 of Executive Order 13780. Additionally DHS HQ IT personnel are searching the personal server drives and local hard drives of the DHS HQ custodians. 23. All of the above described searches have been initiated shortly after the parties noti?ed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle on the search parameters and methodology, and are currently underway. The searches have not yet returned results in the form of number of hits, ?le sizes, or combined data volume. DATA THAT DHS HO PREVIOUSLY HAS SEARCHED USING ARROWER CRITERIA 24. Before the parties reached the agreement in principle on search parameters re?ected in the February 13, 2018 joint status report, DHS HQ IT had already iteratively initiated other searches against DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems based requests from DOJ. 25. Previously for RF 23, before Plaintiffs insisted on added search terms to reach agreement, DHS HQ IT personnel searched the unclassi?ed e-mail accounts, by custodian, of John Kelly, Elaine Duke, Kirstjen Nielsen, Joseph Maher, Gene Hamilton, and Chip Fulghum using the search terms OR ?Controlled Application Review 2 DHS HQ used February 9, 2018, as the end date for any date range in this declaration that ends in ?present? because that was the end of the business week prior to when the e-mail searches described herein were initiated. DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 10 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 12 of 17 and Resolution Program? OR ?Articulable Link? from November 9, 2016, through March 6, 2017 (Test 1). 26. These Test 1 searches resulted in the following resulting number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian: a. John Kelly: 1 hit, ?le size 2.19 b. Elaine Duke: 0 hits, no ?le size; 0. Kirstjen Nielsen: 10 hits, ?le size 53.5 (1. Joseph Maher: 19 hits, ?le size 30.7 e. Gene Hamilton: 20 hits, ?le size 53.5 f. Chip Fulghum: 17 hits, ?le size 44.3 MB. 27. Thus, the Test 1 searches by custodian that DHS HQ IT personnel ran resulted in a combined total of 67 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 184.19 MB. 28. Previously for RFP 24, before Plaintiffs insisted on added search terms and added custodians to reach agreement, DHS HQ IT personnel searched the unclassi?ed e- mail accounts, by custodian, of Olivia Troye, Teresa Downey, Frank Wuco, John Latta, Victoria Lester-Saura, Michael Scardaville, Briana Petyo, and John Dermody using the search terms ?13769? OR ?13780? OR ?Continuous Immigration Vetting? OR ?Extreme Vetting? OR ?Interview Expansion? OR ?Interview Waiver? OR ?Recurrent Vetting? OR ?Section 4? OR ?Section 5? OR ?Uniform Screening? OR ?Uniform Vetting? from November 9, 2016, to February 2, 2018 (Test 2). 29. These Test 2 searches resulted in the following resulting number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian: Olivia Troye: 6,964 hits, ?le size 2.02 Teresa Downey: 3,116 hits, ?le size 949 Frank Wuco: 6,091 hits, ?le size 5.79 John Latta: 7,064 hits, ?le size 1.52 Victoria Lester-Saura: 12,758 hits, ?le size 2.54 f. Michael Scardaville: 3,774 hits, ?le size 1.11 P- .0 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - I (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 13 of 17 g. Briana Petyo: 4,834 hits, ?le size 2.82 h. John Dermody: 4,426 hits, ?le size 1.77 GB. 30. Thus, the Test 2 searches by custodian that DHS HQ IT personnel ran resulted in a combined total of 49,027 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 18.519 GB. 31. Overall, unclassi?ed e-mail searches using terms speci?ed by DOJ before Plaintiffs insisted upon additional search terms and custodians to reach agreement for RFPs 23 and 24, namely Tests 1 and 2 above, resulted in a combined total of 49,094 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 18.70319 GB. 32. As the parties were meeting and conferring, DOJ also requested that DHS HQ IT personnel search the unclassi?ed e-mail accounts, by custodian, of Olivia Troye, Teresa Downey, Frank Wuco, John Latta, Victoria Lester-Saura, Michael Scardaville, Briana Petyo, and John Dermody using the Boolean search string (?Protecting the Nation? OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry? OR ?Executive Order? OR AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate* OR ?national security? OR suspend*) from November 9, 2016, to present (which was then implemented as February 2, 2018) (Test 3). 33. Test 3 searches resulted in the following resulting number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian: Olivia Troye: 5,996 hits, ?le size 3.55 Teresa Downey: 2,189 hits, ?le size 956 Frank Wuco: 9,464 hits, ?le size 10.5 John Latta: 6,217 hits, ?le size 1.67 Victoria Lester-Saura: 11,734 hits, ?le size 2.33 Michael Scardaville: 3,852 hits, ?le size 1.31 Briana Petyo: 6,653 hits, ?le size 5.38 John Dermody: 4,542 hits, ?le size 2.67 GB. 34. Thus, the Test 3 searches by custodian that DHS HQ IT personnel ran resulted in a combined total of 50,647 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 28.366 GB. p. .0 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 12 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 14 of 17 35. As the parties were meeting and conferring, DOJ also have requested that DHS HQ IT personnel search the unclassi?ed e-mail accounts, by custodian, of John Kelly, Elaine Duke, Kirstjen Nielsen, Joseph Maher, Gene Hamilton, and Chip Fulghum using the Boolean search string (?Protecting the Nation? OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry? OR ?Executive Order? OR AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate* OR ?national security? OR suspend*) from November 9, 2016, to present (which was then implemented as February 2, 2018) (Test 4). 36. Test 4 searches resulted in the following resulting number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian: a. John Kelly: 253 hits, ?le size 278 b. Elaine Duke: 979 hits, ?le size 494 0. Kirstjen Nielsen: 5,608 hits, ?le size 53.5 (1. Kirstjen Nielsen (Secretary of Homeland Security e-mail account): 276 hits, ?le size 30.7 e. Joseph Maher: 10,082 hits, ?le size 12.1 f. Gene Hamilton: 12,619 hits, ?le size 12.1 g. Chip Fulghum: 9,941 hits, ?le size 15.4 GB. 37. Thus, the Test 4 searches by custodian that DHS HQ IT personnel ran resulted in a combined total of 39,758 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 40.4562 GB. 38. As the parties were meeting and conferring, DOJ also have requested that DHS HQ IT personnel search the unclassi?ed e-mail accounts, by custodian, of John Kelly, Elaine Duke, Kirstjen Nielsen, Joseph Maher, Gene Hamilton, and Chip Fulghum using the search terms ?Decon?ict*? OR ?Known or Suspected Terrorist? OR OR ?National Security Concern? OR ?National Security Indicator? OR ?Non National Security? OR ?Non-Known or Suspected Terrorist? OR OR Activities? OR Concern? OR Hit? OR Indicator? from November 9, 2016, to March 6, 2017 (Test 5). DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - l3 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 15 of 17 39. Test 5 searches resulted in the following resulting number of hits by custodian and ?le sizes by custodian: a. John Kelly: 7 hits, ?le size 40.4 b. Elaine Duke: 0 hits, no ?le size; c. Kirstjen Nielsen: 147 hits, ?le size 259 (1. Joseph Maher: 787 hits, ?le size 1.50 6. Gene Hamilton: 169 hits, ?le size 298 f. Chip Fulghum: 342 hits, ?le size 631 MB. 40. Thus, the Test 5 searches by custodian that DHS HQ IT personnel ran resulted in a combined total of 1,452 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 2.7284 GB. 41. Overall, Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 resulted in a combined total of 140,951 hits, and combined ?le sizes of 90.25379 GB?and this is signi?cant because Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 combined still do not capture the breadth of the search terms that Plaintiffs insisted upon for agreement, so these combined tests are at least a ?oor for the combined total number of hits and combined ?le sizes that will be returned by DHS HQ IT personnel when the agreed upon unclassi?ed e-mail searches for RFPs 23 and 24 are completed and returned. It is also important to note that these tests were only run against DHS HQ custodians? unclassi?ed e-mail accounts, and thus do not include potentially responsive materials from other sources that DHS has also agreed to search. DHS OGC Resources Required to Review Responses 42. DHS HQ rarely engages in such extensive discovery, and does not have attorneys (or support staff) whose normal duties are substantially anticipated to include such a signi?cant volume and extended duration of document review. 43. Speci?cally with regard to this case, there is one DHS OGC attorney assigned to directly monitor this matter since it challenges a policy issued and implemented not at DHS HQ, but rather at a component, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which has attorneys within Of?ce of the Chief Counsel. The duties of the DHS OGC attorney assigned to this case involve the DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER l4 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 16 of 17 coordination and review of signi?cant high-pro?le litigation at the Departmental and Inter-Departmental level, and this case is one of many on a fully-committed docket that includes separate expedited litigation in other jurisdictions challenging Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 and the subsequent Presidential Proclamation, multiple expedited cases challenging the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, and multiple other cases with competing discovery obligations and court?driven deadlines. DHS other litigation attorneys have similarly over-burdened and fully- committed dockets of assigned cases. 44. Thus, to conduct responsiveness and privilege review for the results of the searches for RFPs 23 and 24, as well as for any of the additional requests by Plaintiffs disputed by Defendants and any other discovery requests, DHS OGC would need to divert attorneys (as well as support staff) from their normal duties and other non- litigation-oriented mission critical functions to this task, or hire temporary contactors. 45. has informed us that it is standard to estimate each attorney can review 35 documents per hour. Although the number of hits reported by searching just DHS unclassi?ed e-mail systems do not account for any attachments or length, which may slow the review pace, using the 35-documents-per-hour benchmark and the combined hits (140,951) resulting from Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5?which still do not capture all of the search terms Plaintiffs eventually insisted that Defendants agree to search? DHS OGC estimates that review of just the potentially responsive unclassi?ed e-mail results could take as long as 4,027 hours, although potentially less time after further de- duplication. 46. DHS HQ IT personnel currently are completing the searches from the ?contingent? ?agree[ment] in principle? represented to the court in the joint status report ?ling of February 13, 2018, so it is not yet possible to estimate the time necessary to 99 66 review those materials?but not only does that ?contingent agree[ment] in principle? re?ect added search terms (and thus potential expansion) for the DHS HQ custodians? unclassi?ed e-mail account searches, it also includes searches of DHS HQ custodians? DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - 15 (2: Case Document 117-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 17 of 17 classi?ed e-mail accounts, personal server drives, and local hard drives, as well as an non-custodial source in the form of a portion of a SharePoint site, with the expectation of adding signi?cantly to both the number of hits and ?le sizes, thus signi?cantly increasing the times required to review the potentially responsive materials. 47. DHS takes its obligation to comply with court orders exceptionally seriously, and will do its utmost to comply with any order issued by the court. But, given what DHS OGC does currently know about the volume of potentially responsive materials, as well as the agency?s limited resources to process and review those materials, I do not believe it is realistically possible to complete the searches, collection, transfer, processing, review, and production on the timeline proposed by Plaintiffs. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this [5 I day of February, 2018, at Washington, DC. I David iL'Palmer Chief of Staff, Of?ce of the General Counsel US. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC DECLARATION OF DAVID J. PALMER - l6 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., N0- 2= 7-CV-00094-RAJ Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING TO REQUESTS TRUMP, et al., FOR PRODUCTION 23 AND 24 Defendants. I, Keith A. Jones, do hereby declare and say: 1. I am the Acting Chief Information Of?cer in the Of?ce of Information Technology of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security 2. As the Acting CIO, I am responsible for the oversight and management of agency- wide CIO Initiatives for service delivery to over 20,000 customers. 3. After consideration of information available to me in my capacity as Acting CIO, the matters contained in this declaration are based upon my understanding of the case of Wagafe, e! 01., v. Trump, 3! al.. Case No. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. UNI IED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSIICE DECLARATION or KEITH A. JONES - (2: 8m mm 11mm: Warm 200:4 (202) 532-1542 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 12 4. I understand that on August 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs in this matter requested certain documents from USCIS, including: 0 Request for Production 23: All Documents referring or relating to any consideration of or reference to CARRP during the planning, drafting, or issuing of the First and Second EOs 0 Request for Production 24: All Documents referring or relating to ?extreme vetting? or any other screening, vetting, or adjudication program, policy, or procedure connected to the First and Second EOs. This request includes. but is not limited to, programs that reference, relate to, or expand upon CARRP USCIS provided responses and objections to this request. 5. I further understand that in RFP 23 and 24, the term ?First and Second refers to Executive Order 13769 ?Protecting the Nation for Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.? 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Feb. 1. 2017) and Executive Order 13780, ?Protecting the Nation for Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.? 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 9, 2017). 6. I realize that on January 10, 2018, this court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding alternative custodians, non-custodial sources, search terms, and other means of review to respond to RFPs 23 and 24. 7. 1 am aware of the non-custodial sources that USCIS has identi?ed as responsive to these requests, as well as the custodial sources, search terms, and date ranges that USC IS has agreed to apply. Volume of Potentially Responsive USCIS Documents Known on February 8, 2018 8. For RFP 23, USCIS searched the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, Donald Neufeld, Daniel Renaud, and Matthew Emrich, for the terms "Controlled UNITE) STATFS 0F or KEITH A. JONES - 2 G?r?mm (2: I 7-CV-00094-RAJ) 3m PO. Box 868 DC 20034 (2021 5.124542 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 12 Application Review and Resolution Program,? and ?Articulable Link,? from November 9, 2016-March 6, 2017.? 9. This search resulted in 371 emails, 1 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 286 megabytes 10. We were unable to determine the number of attachments within each email that contained an attachment given the time allotted. However, estimating that emails with attachments have an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 605. 1. After making an inquiry, USCIS has not identi?ed any non-email personal drive materials for these custodians related to RFP 23. It has also not identi?ed any non- custodial sources related to 23. 12. For RF 24, USCIS searched the emails of Julie amam, Vania Lockett, Teresa Downey, Christopher Heffron, Brett Rinehart, Julie Spencer, Brandi Blackburn, Linda Dougherty, Albert Davis, and Lee Bowes for the terms ?13769," ?13780.? ?Continuous Immigration Vetting,? ?Extreme Vetting,? ?Interview Expansion,? ?Interview Waiver," ?Recurrent Vetting,? ?Section ?Section ?Uniform Screening,? and ?Uniform Vetting.? USCIS also applied the search terms ?Wicklander? and ?Enhanced Communication Course? to the emails ofcustodian Julie Spencer. USCIS also applied the search terms ?Code AND ?Identity Verification," and ?Livescan? AND ?Identity Veri?cation? to the emails of custodian Lee Bowes. The date range for these searches is November 9, 2016-present.3 13. This search resulted in 54,958 emails, 9,307 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 10.6 gigabytes (GB). Using the estimate of an average of 2 Daniel Renaud and Matthew Emrich?s emails were previously searched for these three terms. for a wider date range. so their emails were not searched again, as it would have pulled only duplicative results. 3 This excludes emails from Daniel Renaud and Matthew Emrich, as explained in fn. I. Additionally, internal duplicates from this search (and other searches described in this declaration) have been removed. However. there may be duplicates from separate searches. Further, if an email is unique. but has an attachment that is duplicative. that duplicative attachment would not be removed from the results. USCIS used February 2, 2018 as the end date for any date range in this section of the declaration that ends in ?present" because that is the date it began to run these email searches. UNITED STATES JUSTICE DECLARATION OF A. JONES - 3 [2:l7-cv-00094-RAJ) Bmt?aumx?nsmneoemm Waslm' (202) 5324512 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 12 attachments per email, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 73,572. 14. USCIS also identi?ed personal drive materials for the RF 24 custodians. There are 5.888 potentially responsive documents, with a data size of 13.9 GB. 15. USCIS also identi?ed the following non-custodial document sources for RF 24: USCIS Field Operations Directorate (FOD) ECN sites relevant to Continuous Immigration Vetting and Expanded Interview efforts; USCIS Fraud. Detection. and National Security (FDNS) ECN sites relevant to Continuous Immigration Vetting and Expanded Interviews; USCIS National Benefits Center (NBC) ECN sites relevant to Expanded Interviews; USCIS Immigration Records and Identity Services (IRIS) ECN sites relevant to Application Support Center (ASC) identity veri?cation; USCIS FOD share drive folders related to interview training; and USCIS DNS share drive folders related to Continuous Immigration Vetting; USCIS NBC share drive folders related to Expanded Interviews. 16. There are 850 potentially responsive documents, with a data size of 456 MB. 17. The total number of emails and documents from these searches is estimated to be 80,915. The overall size of the data for these searches is 25.2] GB. 18. On February 8, 2018, OIT transferred these documents, via an external hard drive, to the Department of Justice for processing and upload to the review platform.4 Volume of Additional Potentially Responsive USCIS documents began searching for on Februag 2, 2018 19. I understand that prior to February 2, 2018, Plaintiffs in this matter requested additional searches that USCIS had not yet agreed to. On February 13, 2018, USCIS agreed to additional custodians and search terms. The results of those searches are described below. 4 Alter transferring the external hard drive, realized that a small subset of documents from the custodial personal drives was improperly excluded from the transfer. A?er identifying this error, OIT collected those documents and expects to transfer them to on February 20. UNITED STATES ISTICE DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES - 4 smut-.0 mare Was-am DC 201?: (20215324512 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 6 of 12 20. Plaintiffs in this matter, pursuant to RFP 24, requested that USCIS search the emails of Julie Farnam, Vania Lockett, Teresa Downey, Christopher Heffron. Brett Rinehart, Julie Spencer, Brandi Blackburn, Linda Dougherty, Albert Davis, and Lee Bowes, for the terms (?Protecting the Nation? OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry? OR ?Executive Order? OR AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate" OR ?national security? OR suspend?) from November 9, 2016-present.5 21. email searches pull emails that include any word that incorporates a search term. Thus, a search term such as would pull any email with a word that has the letters ?e0? such as ?theory.? USCIS does not have the technical capabilities to limit searches to prevent this from occurring. 22. This search resulted in 17,242 emails, 6,687 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 8.08 GB. Using an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 30,616. 23. I understand that Plaintiffs in this matter, pursuant to RFP 24, requested that USCIS search the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld. and Matthew D. Emrich for the terms (?Protecting the Nation? OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry" OR "Executive Order? OR ?130?) AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate* OR ?national security? OR suspend*) from November 9, 2016-present. 24. This search resulted in 37,389 emails, 10,876 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 14.5 GB. Using an average of 2 attachments the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 59,141. 25. I understand that Plaintiffs in this matter, pursuant to RF 23. requested that USCIS search the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld, and Matthew D. Emrich for the terms ?Known or SusPected Terrorist," 5 USCIS used February 2, 2018 as the end date for any date range in this section of the declaration that ends in ?present? because that is the date it began to run these email searches. UN STATES 0F US Ii DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES - 5 mans Wadingm. DC 20014 (202) 5324512 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 7 of 12 ?National Security Concern,? ?National Security Indicator,? ?Non National Security," ?Non-Known or Suspected Terrorist,? Activities," Concern,? Hit,? Indicator? from November 9, 2016-March 6, 2017.6 26. This search resulted in 1,882 emails, 1,032 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 1.81 GB. Using an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 3,946. 27. Overall, these searches are estimated to contain 93,703 documents, with a data size of 24.39 GB. 28. I understand that on February 13, 2018, USCIS agreed to include these documents within the scope of review for this case. The size of this data, as well as the data transferred on February 8, 2018, is 174,618 potentially responsive documents, with a data size of 49.6 GB. Volume of Potentially Responsive reguested bv Plaintiffs after Februarv 8. 29. I understand that on February 9, 2018, Plaintiffs requested additional terms to be added to the search, and USCIS consented to complete searches for this information. The description of this data is below. 30. Plaintiffs requested that USCIS search the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, and Donald Neufeld for the terms ?13769,? ?13780,? ?Continuous Immigration Vetting.? ?Extreme Vetting,? ?Interview Expansion,? ?Interview Waiver,? ?Recurrent Vetting,? "Section ?Section ?Uniform Screening,? and ?Uniform Vetting,? ?Wicklander,? and "Enhanced Communication Course,? ?Code AND ?Identity Verification." and ?Livescan? AND ?Identity Verification? from November 9, 2018-present.7 6 UCSIS previously searched Daniel Renaud and Matthew Emrich?s emails for these terms, over a broader time period, so their emails were not re-searched here. The end date for this search. and all others in this section that refer to ?present? is February 12, 2018, as that is when OIT conducted the search. UNITED STATES DEPARTMIN OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF A. JONES - 6 ?meag?gg'g 9mm? BmanklhISm'aL 1?0 Bmsos Waih?qsortlx?m (202) 5324.92 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 8 of 12 31. This search resulted in 20,046 emails, 6,896 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 8.78 GB. Using an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 33,838. 32. Plaintiffs requested that USCIS search the emails of Julie Farnam; Vania Lockett; Teresa Downey; Christopher Heffron; Brett Rinehart; Brandi Blackburn; Linda Dougherty; Albert Davis; and Lee Bowes8 for the terms ?Wicklander,? and ?Enhanced Communication Course? from November 9, 2016-present. 33. This search resulted in 193 emails, 170 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 103 MB. Using an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 533. 34. Plaintiffs requested that USCIS search the emails of Julie Famam; Vania Lockett; Teresa Downey; Christopher Heffron; Brett Rinehart; Brandi Blackburn; Linda Dougherty; Albert Davis; and Julie Spencer9 for the terms ?Code AND ?Identity Verification,? and ?Livescan? AND ?Identity Verification? from November 9, 2016-present. 35. This search resulted in 1679 emails, 1514 of which have at least one attachment, with a data size of 2.29 GB. Using an average of 2 attachments, the total number of documents from this search is estimated to be 4,707. 36. Overall, these searches are estimated to contain 39,078 documents, with a data size of 11.17 GB. 37. Once this data is included, the overall volume of documents is 213,696, with a data size of 60.8 GB. 8 As described in paragraph 30, the USCIS's Leadership custodians? emails were also searched for these terms in a separate search. Julie Spencer also was not included in this search, as her emails were previously searched for these terms. 9 As described in paragraph 30, the Leadership custodians? emails were also searched for these terms in a separate search. Lee Bowes also was not included in this search, as his emails were previously searched for these terms. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE . CinJDi moaned lhigmim DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES - 7 . '91? p0. Box 868 (202)532-4542 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 9 of 12 Volume of Potentially Responsive USCIS Data first reguesteg on February 13, 1018 38. I understand that in preparing for a report to the court on February 13, 20 8. Plaintiffs asked for additional information to be searched. USCIS agreed to search for this additional information. 39. Because USCIS was not aware of these requests before February 13, 20 I 8. it was not able to begin searching for relevant documents until February 14, 2018. 40. On February 14, 2018, OIT began to search the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld, Matthew D. Emrich, Julie amam, Vania Lockett, Teresa Downey, Christopher Heffron, Brett Rinehart, Julie Spencer, Brandi Blackburn. Linda Dougherty, Albert Davis, and Lee Bowes for the terms (?Protecting the Nation" OR ?Foreign Terrorist Entry? OR ?Executive Order? OR ?130?) AND (screen* OR vet* OR adjudicate* OR ?national security? OR suspend? OR naturaliz* OR adjust* OR ?green card?)) from November 9, 2016-present.l0 4 1. At the time of signing this declaration, we did not have the results of the search. 42. 1 also understand that Plaintiffs requested the personal drives of all of the custodians to be searched for all documents relevant to RFPs 23 and 24. USCIS previously determined that Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine. Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld, Matthew D. Emrich do not have potentially responsive documents related to RFP 23 in their personal drives. USCIS also previously identi?ed the potentially responsive documents that Julie Famam, Vania Lockett, Teresa Downey, Christopher Heffron, Brett Rinehart, Julie Spencer, Brandi Blackburn, Linda Dougherty, Albert Davis, and Lee Bowes have in their personal drives for RFP 24, and transferred that information to DOJ . 43. However, USCIS had not previously determined whether Lori Scialabba. Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik, '0 The end date for this search is February I4, 2018. UNITE) STATFS DEPARTMENTOF Jl 1511C DECLARATION OF mama A. JONES - 8 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ) Ben mum mitt). 8:30:868 Wainm DC mm (202) 532-1532 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 10 of 12 Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld, Matthew D. Emrich had potentially responsive documents related to RFP 24 in their personal drives. 44. On February 14, 2018, OIT was provided with most of the information needed to collect potentially responsive materials related to RFP 24 for these custodians. At the time ofsigning this declaration, some information is still being identi?ed, and we did not have the results of the search. 45. Plaintiffs requested that USCIS search the emails of Lori Scialabba, Tracy Renaud, Molly Groom, Larry Levine, Craig Symons, Carl Risch, Kathy Neubel Kovarik. Daniel M. Renaud, Donald Neufeld, Matthew D. Emrich, Julie Farnam, Vania Lockett, Teresa Downey, Christopher Heffron, Brett Rinehart, Julie Spencer, Brandi Blackburn, Linda Dougherty, Albert Davis, and Lee Bowes for the term ?Application Support Center? AND ?Identity Verification? from November 9, 2016 present. 46. USCIS has not yet completed this search, as it was inadvertently left offof the list of terms provided to OIT to search. However, it intended to expeditiously complete this search and provide the potentially responsive documents to Total Volume of Documents 47. The total volume of documents which have currently been identi?ed on the terms agreed to by the parties described above is estimated to be 213,696 with a size of 60.8 GB. 48. Rolling transfers of potentially responsive documents to for purposes of processing and review commenced on February 8, 2018 and are ongoing. The remainder is expected to be transferred on Tuesday, February 20. Eden on Information TechnologL?? 49. A?er discovery in this litigation began, OIT assigned two individuals to support the discovery efforts, from the Forensics and Cyber Threat Section (FACTS) and from the Focused Operations (F0) team. FACTS has the expertise and ability to pull documents from internal site, known as the ECN, and F0 has the expertise and ability to pull email, personal drive, and share drive information. STATFS DEPARTMENT OF DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES - 9 (2: I 8m Emmott P0 am 868 WW DC 200M (202)532-3542 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 11 of 12 50. Litigation and discovery issues are typically the highest priority support work for FACTS and F0. This means that when a team member receives requests to pull data related to discovery in this case, all day-to-day operations normally accomplished by the assigned team member are redistributed among other individuals and then tasks for all team members are reprioritized to accommodate the modi?ed work load. 5 I. Since August 2017, when discovery efforts in this case began, FACTS and diversion of resources to the discovery in this case has slowed efforts to complete unrelated projects, and bring new functionalities online. These teams are also responsible for supporting investigations and Freedom of Information Act (F OIA) requests. That support has at times been temporarily delayed during efforts to pull data for discovery in this case. 52. Finally, individuals have worked outside normal of?ce hours in order to verify progress of searches and data exports. 53. The amount of data pulled so far for this case. as well as the number of hours that OIT has expended to support this effort, has greatly exceed typical investigative and FOIA requirements. Because this is the one of the few times that USCIS has engaged in such expansive discovery into electronic data, OIT does not have speci?c employees or time allotted to engage in efforts related to electronic discovery. 54. In all, the time and effort expended thus far has impacted the mission of FACTS and F0 by slowing down completion time for projects, pushing back efforts to bring new functionalities online to further mission, and resulting in employees working after-hours to accomplish tasks. This impact has been signi?cant, and affected other mission priorities. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLARATION or KEITH A. JONES - l0 ?hem 951?: :?M?Wmmn (2: I 7-CV-00094-RAJ Ba! i?m?d?l mpg. [1m 8118 wamlrzam (202)5324ru2 Case Document 117-2 Filed 02/16/18 Page 12 of 12 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this /2 day of February, 2018 at Washington, DC. Keith AfJones Acting CIO US. Citizenship and Immigration Service Washington, DC. UNITED OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF KEITH A. JONES - 9mm? (2: Bairmlk?nm PO. amass WNW IX: (202) 5324512 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 9 The Honorable Richard A. Jones UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR at 31" DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. Plaintiffs, BELL, JR. IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING To REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TRUMP, et a1., 23 AND 24 Defendants. No. 2: 1, Stephen P. Bell, Jr., do hereby declare and say: 1. I am the Chief of Staff of the Of?ce of the Chief Counsel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security 2. As the Chief of Staff, I am responsible for overseeing staf?ng and personnel allocations within OCC. 3. After consideration of information available to me in my capacity as Chief of Staff, the matters contained in this declaration are based upon my understanding of the case of Wagafe, et al., v. Trump, et a1., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. DEPARW 05199.1? DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 1 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ) BmFm?dmmPOBoxs?s WmhingtomDC20044 (202)5324542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 9 4. I understand that on August 1, 2017 the Plaintiffs in this matter requested certain documents from USCIS, including: 0 Request for Production 23: All Documents referring or relating to any consideration of or reference to CARRP during the planning, drafting, or issuing of the First and Second EOs 0 Request for Production 24: All Documents referring or relating to ?extreme vetting? or any other screening, vetting, or adjudication program, policy, or procedure connected to the First and Second EOs. This request includes, but is not limited to, programs that reference, relate to, or expand upon CARRP USCIS provided responses and objections to this request. 5. It is my understanding that on February 13, 2018, parties in this matter reached an agreement in principle regarding custodians, non-custodial sources, and search terms, to respond to RFPs 23 and 24. 6. USCIS has made diligent efforts since ?rst receiving Plaintiffs August 1 RF Ps to search for, review, and produce potentially responsive documents to Plaintiffs. We are aware that for RFPs 23 and 24, there are estimated to be at least 215,000 potentially responsive documents, with a data size of approximately 60.9 gigabytes (GB) that require responsiveness and privilege review. 7. However, despite good faith efforts, as of today, the total volume of potentially responsive documents to all of Plaintiffs? RF P3 is unknown. Overview of the Document Review Process for Most of the Potentially Responsive Documents for the First RFPs 8. As described below, USCIS has diligently searched for and reviewed potentially responsive documents to Plaintiffs? First RFPs since the requests were received on August 1, 2017. Because USCIS raised objections to RFPs 23 and 24 and classi?ed documents, it focused on all documents requests other than these. OCC worked with its clients to identify relevant custodians, develop appropriate search terms, and identify UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 2 mm Pm?. Mm" (202) 532-4542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 9 custodial and non-custodial locations where potentially responsive documents could be stored. 9. On August 15, 2017, OCC began providing Of?ce of Information Technology with the names of custodians, email search terms, personal drive information, and information regarding non-custodial sources so that they could begin to collect potentially responsive data. As OCC continued to collect information regarding the locations of potentially responsive documents, it provided that information to OIT. 10. USCIS does not have a processing tool or document review platform of its own, because our typical litigation does not require signi?cant discovery and document review. 11. Therefore, USCIS had to transfer all of its potentially relevant documents to for processing and upload to review platform. USCIS attorneys also needed to obtain access to the database as well as attend training to learn how to use the review platform. 12. On September 25, 2017, OCC began a linear review without technological assistance to identify responsive documents) of potentially responsive documents, and the agency produced its ?rst rolling production to Plaintiffs on October 2, 2017. The agency has completed four additional productions and continues to make productions as documents become available. 13. After the vast majority of the approximately 1 million potentially responsive documents were uploaded to review platform, OCC and D01 jointly determined that technology assisted review should be utilized to make a ?rst-level determination of each document?s responsiveness. 14. We understand that the TAR process, which commenced in December, is still ongoing as of today. Once the TAR process is complete, USCIS will need to conduct a linear privilege review of the documents determined to be responsive by the TAR process. However, we are not yet certain how many documents will need to be reviewed. Identification of Potentially Responsive Documents for RFPs 23 and 241 The parties have agreed that the Second RFP, including RFPs 40-44, is encompassed within RFP 24. Thus, USCIS has not conducted any separate, additional searches for the Second RFPs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLARA mm STEPHEN BELL, JR. 3 - Washingon, DC 20044 (202) 5324542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 9 15. Following the court?s January 11 order clarifying the scope of discovery for RFPS 23 and 24, OCC surveyed custodians and determined who may have potentially responsive documents, and where those documents would be stored. OCC further identi?ed non-custodial sources of potentially responsive documents. 16. On January 17, OCC began providing OIT with information needed to identify potentially responsive documents. As additional potentially responsive documents were identi?ed, and the parties reached further agreements regarding the scope of searches for RFPS 23 and 24, OCC provided relevant information to OIT to identify potentially responsive documents on a rolling basis. 17. I am aware that on February 8, OIT provided DOJ with the potentially responsive documents it had identi?ed for purposes of processing and uploading into review platform. OIT informs us that it expects to have the remainder available to be transferred on February 20. Identification of Potentially Responsive Classi?ed Documents 18. After the court?s October 19 order for USCIS to search fOr classi?ed documents, OCC surveyed custodians to determine who may have potentially responsive documents, and where they would be stored. 19. OCC also consulted with OIT and was informed that USCIS lacks the capability to use search terms to conduct searches within classi?ed systems to identify potentially responsive documents. However, OIT believed that DHS may have such capabilities. 20. OCC consulted with DHS to determine their capabilities to access classi?ed documents and use search terms to locate potentially responsive classi?ed documents. After further consultations with OIT, it was determined that this could be accomplished. 21. On February 14, OCC provided DHS OGC with the names of custodians for potentially responsive documents to all of the First RFPS so that OIT could UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSIICE DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 4 ?131??deme (2: W?as?fx, Po. Box868 (202)532-4542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 6 of 9 identify and collect potentially responsive documents of custodians that are located on classi?ed systems. OCC does not yet have the results of this search. Document Review 22. Ultimately, USCIS will be responsible for document review for the following groups of potentially responsive documents: 0 An unknown number of documents to be identi?ed by the ongoing TAR process from approximately one million potentially responsive documents relating to the Plaintiffs First RFPS, excluding RFP 23 and RFP 24; and 0 Approximately 215,000 potentially responsive documents related to RFP 23 and RFP 24 from Plaintiffs? First and 0 An unknown number of classi?ed documents. 23. DOJ has informed us that based on the pace of review in other recent cases, it is realistic to estimate that review of documents can be completed at a pace of 35 documents per hour. 24. Review of the approximately 215,000 potentially responsive documents identi?ed thus far at a pace of 35 documents per hour would take approximately 6100 hours. This estimate applies only to the potentially responsive documents to RFPS 23 and 24, and does not consider the documents responsive to other RF Ps that are currently undergoing the TAR process, classi?ed documents, or the potentially responsive documents to RF PS 23 and 24 that have not yet been collected. Therefore, the number of hours needed for review is likely far greater than this estimate, but it is not possible to quantify at this time. Impact of Document Review on Mission 25. OCC provides legal services to USCIS, and is part of the DHS legal program, overseen by Of?ce of General Counsel. OCC supports the USCIS mission by: (1) providing timely and accurate legal advice on all aspects of the USCIS immigration bene?ts programs, from case speci?c inquiries during the adjudication process to legal 2 Because OIT is continuing to ?nalize data collection, this number of potentially responsive documents is expected to increase, but it is not yet known by how much it will increase. DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 5 (2: Waslnn' moczoo44 (202) 5324542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 7 of 9 suf?ciency review of regulations, policies and practices; (2) providing training to USCIS of?cers on areas of immigratiOn law; and, (3) providing litigation support to the Department of Justice on cases involving immigration bene?ts. 26. To complete this mission, OCC currently has an attorney staff of 263 and a paralegal staff of 20 nationally. Approximately19 percent of attorneys and paralegals (47 attorneys and 2 paralegals) are assigned to non-immigration related matters such as labor and employee relations, contracting and acquisition, ethics, and equal employment opportunity litigation. Thus, the attorney staff assigned to immigration matters is 216, and the paralegal staff is 18. The majority of this staff is located in the eighty-six ?eld of?ces throughout the United States and supports local USCIS of?ces. Approximately half of the USCIS ?eld of?ces do not have an OCC attorney on site because OCC does not have suf?cient resources to support all client of?ces in person on a daily basis. Those of?ces are supported remotely from other of?ces. Additionally, approximately one quarter of the ?eld of?ces have only one OCC attorney on site. 27. USCIS, including OCC, is primarily a fee-funded agency. USCIS adjudicates millions of requests for bene?ts each ?scal year. When the agency takes on additional substantial costs, those funds generally come from the fees that applicants, petitioners, and requestors pay to obtain immigration bene?ts. 28. Even though only a small percentage of adjudications generate litigation for the agency, the number of cases is signi?cant and increasing. Over the last four completed ?scal years, litigation ?lings have run signi?cantly more than one thousand cases ?led a year against USCIS. In each of the last two ?scal years, ?lings against USCIS have increased by more than 25 percent. This trend appears to be continuing in Fiscal Year 2018. At present, there are approximately 1,130 litigation cases for the program involving immigration issues. These cases range from challenges over the denial or delay in a single case, to cases that challenge national policies and regulations, involve national injunctive relief, and include several nationally certi?ed class actions. UNITED STATES OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELLBmFrar?dhiStatiorLP.O.Box868 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 8 of 9 29. All litigation faced by USCIS is given a high priority at OCC because it often implicates matters of national importance, including foreign relations and national security, necessitating coordination with other executive level departments. The litigation burden on the of?ce means that USCIS is increasingly redirecting its limited resources from other mission requirements to litigation support. This is true even though USCIS rarely engages in extensive discovery, and does not have attorneys whose normal duties are anticipated to include substantial document review. 30. In light of existing resources and competing priorities, OCC believes that diverting suf?cient legal professionals to document review for this case would impede its ability to perform its mission and have an adverse impact on the legal program and the agency by diverting resources away from legal advice and training, which directly affect the USCIS core mission. Feasibility of Suggested Production Timeline 31. Plaintiffs? position is that the vast majority of responsive documents to all RFPs, other than RFP 24, should be produced by April 23, while the vast majority of responsive documents to RFP 24 should be produced by May 28. 32. OCC takes its obligation to meet court-ordered deadlines with the utmost seriousness. It further takes its obligation to provide candor to the court as its ethical duty. Based on the information provided above and the reasons further described below, OCC cannot in good faith guarantee that it can meet the production deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs. OCC has made, and will continue to make, good faith efforts to comply with those deadlines, including exploring the feasibility of obtaining resources to assist with the document review so that it can be completed in a timely manner. 33. OCC believes that the uncertainty regarding the volume of documents that will require review make it impossible to predict whether it will be able to meet Plaintiffs? proposed schedule. DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 7 BmFmildinmPoBmsw (202) 532-4542 Case Document 117-3 Filed 02/16/18 Page 9 of 9 34. Most signi?cantly, the number of documents that will need to be reviewed upon completion of the TAR process is unknown at this point. 35. Notwithstanding these concerns, OCC is exploring options to review the documents within the timeframes proposed by the Plaintiffs by acquiring and employing non-OCC resources. These extraordinary options are necessary because any attempt to comply with these timelines using only OCC legal professionals would signi?cantly impede our program?s ability to complete its mission. 36. For example, we are working to determine the cost and feasibility of using contractors to conduct a large portion of the document review, including ensuring that the contracting proCess can be completed substantially in the time periods suggested by the Plaintiffs. At the same time, OCC is working with USCIS leadership to determine the availability of funds to support this potential contract. 37. In addition, OCC and the DHS Of?ce of the General Counsel are exploring the possibility of identifying legal professionals from other legal programs and operational components within the Department who could temporarily provide support for the document review related to this litigation. Provided that such an effort would not adversely affect any of the Department?s other missions, such resources could help OCC meet the Plaintiffs? proposed timelines. 38. OCC is taking the above steps to complete document review within the timelines. We will provide any update to the court, as necessary, as the document production process continues. . ?it . Executed th1s day of February, 2018 at Washington, DC. Stephen P. Bell, Jr. Chief of Staff, Of?ce of the Chie Counsel US. Citizenship and Immigration Service Washington, DC. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF STEPHEN P. BELL, JR. 8 BalFIanldin Station, PO. Box 868 wanmgmoczoou (202) 5324542