Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 11 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’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 Page 3 I.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1  4 II.  ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2  A.  Defendants Acknowledge They Did Not Properly Invoke the Law Enforcement Privilege Before Withholding and Redacting These Documents. ............................................................................................................ 2  B.  The Emrich Declaration Is Plainly Insufficient Because It Fails to Provide Specific Information about Each Document and Does Not Adequately Consider the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. ................................................ 4  C.  Defendants’ Privilege Logs Are Insufficient. ........................................................ 6  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – i 138663358.3 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Bernat v. City of California City, No. 1:10-CV-00305, 2010 WL 4008361 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) ..........................................4 Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., C 06-00545 WHA, 2009 WL 5069133 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) ...........................................5 In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................1 Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ...........................................................................................4, 6 Maria Del Socorro Quintero Perez, CY v. U.S., No. 13CV1417-WQH-BGS, 2016 WL 362508 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) ................................3 Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 615 (D. Nev. 2013)..................................................................................................3 14 S.E.C. v. Thrasher, 92 CIV. 6987 (JFK), 1995 WL 46681 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1995)................................................4 15 OTHER AUTHORITIES 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .........................................................................................................................5, 6 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) .....................................................................................................5, 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – ii 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 11 1 2 I. INTRODUCTION Defendants’ opposition expressly acknowledges that they did not (and will not) properly 3 invoke the law enforcement privilege before redacting and withholding documents pursuant to 4 that privilege. Rather than adhere to the standard governing that privilege, Defendants have 5 decided to create a new standard altogether. According to Defendants, they can use the law 6 enforcement privilege to withhold and redact documents without actually invoking it; and only if 7 challenged will they “formally” invoke the privilege and then provide the necessary declaration 8 and explanations to justify withholding and redacting these documents pursuant to this privilege. 9 That is not the law. Courts, including this one, uniformly have made clear that to “claim 10 this privilege” there (i) must be a formal claim by the head of the department, (ii) based on that 11 official’s personal consideration, (iii) that is specified with an adequate explanation why it 12 properly falls within the scope of the law enforcement privilege. See Oct. 19, 2017, Order (Dkt. 13 98) at 3 (citing In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 271-72 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Defendants’ 14 acknowledgement that they never formally asserted the privilege (until now) demonstrates that 15 their redactions and withholdings were improper all along, and deprived Plaintiffs of the ability 16 to respond meaningfully to the invocation of the privilege (a 6-page reply brief is not enough). 17 Setting aside whether Defendants properly invoked the privilege in the first instance, the 18 Emrich Declaration, provided only with Defendants’ opposition, is plainly insufficient, and 19 underscores Defendants’ inability to satisfy the requirement of the law enforcement privilege. 20 Mr. Emrich does not state whether he viewed each document personally, nor does he provide any 21 specific explanation for why each document falls under the privilege. Instead, Mr. Emrich relies 22 on generalized statements about the documents en masse. Worse, the declaration does not 23 discuss why the Protective Order the Court entered would provide inadequate protection. 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 11 1 Finally, Defendants’ opposition illustrates why their privilege logs are improper. 2 Remarkably, Defendants assert they were not required to provide these details because they had 3 not yet “formally” claimed the privilege. 4 In sum, Defendants opposition makes clear they do not intend to follow the law 5 governing this privilege—even though this Court expressly articulated the standard in its October 6 19 2017 order—and instead will continue withholding information based on privileges they have 7 not formally asserted. The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion. 8 9 10 A. II. ARGUMENT Defendants Acknowledge They Did Not Properly Invoke the Law Enforcement Privilege Before Withholding and Redacting These Documents. Defendants assert that they are not obligated to follow the requirements governing the 11 law enforcement privilege, even when withholding or redacting documents pursuant to the 12 privilege, unless their privilege assertions are challenged in the context of a motion to compel. 13 Only then, according to Defendants, must they provide an affidavit to “formally invoke the law 14 enforcement privilege.” Dkt. 119 at 8. The Court should reject this argument for three reasons. 15 First and foremost, Defendants’ argument contradicts the very standard governing this 16 privilege. As this Court made clear, “to claim” the privilege—that is, to use it to justify 17 withholding or redacting documents—the government must meet three requirements: “(1) there 18 must be a formal claim of privilege by the head of the department having control over the 19 requested information; (2) assertion of the privilege must be based on actual personal 20 consideration by that official; and (3) the information for which the privilege is claimed must be 21 specified, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege.” Dkt. 98 at 22 3. But Defendants’ position is that they need not follow through on any of those requirements to 23 use this privilege to withhold documents: no need to formally invoke it, or have the proper 24 agency official personally review the documents, or even specify in detail why that particular 25 document must be withheld. Accepting this position would force receiving parties to play an 26 endless game of bluff: speculating about whether the receiving party can actually meet the PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 2 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 6 of 11 1 requirements of a privilege assertion—an impossible task when staring at a document that is 2 entirely redacted or withheld altogether. 3 Second, there is no support for the “informal v. formal” distinction Defendants have 4 manufactured to justify their approach to privilege. If a party asserts a privilege to withhold or 5 redact a document, that is a formal assertion of that privilege, and that party must comply with 6 the requirements governing the privilege. Defendants identify no basis for invoking the privilege 7 on a provisional or interim basis, which would confer all the benefits of that privilege but avoid 8 the burdens associated with it. Defendants’ suggestion that to follow the law by providing a 9 declaration would be too burdensome is disproven by the fact that they procured a declaration 10 11 here (albeit one that is insufficient). Third, none of the cases Defendants cite actually supports their argument. For instance, 12 Defendants cite Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 615 (D. Nev. 2013), for the notion that 13 they need not produce an affidavit before “a formal challenge to the assertion.” Dkt. 119 at 7. 14 But Phillips is about the attorney/client privilege, which has completely different requirements 15 that don’t involve affidavits from the head of an agency. Defendants cite Maria Del Socorro 16 Quintero Perez, CY v. U.S., No. 13CV1417-WQH-BGS, 2016 WL 362508 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 17 2016), but the court there considered and rejected the defendant’s assertion of the law 18 enforcement privilege because the declaration was insufficient. Id. at *4. Defendants also cite 19 S.E.C. v. Downe, 92 CIV. 4092 (PKL), 1994 WL 23141, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 1994), but that 20 decision expressly turned on that court’s local rules, which don’t apply here. None of these 21 cases states that a defendant can use the privilege to withhold relevant documents without 22 meeting the requirements for the privilege. 23 By contrast, in one of the foundational cases establishing the standard that now governs 24 the law enforcement privilege, a district court made clear that “to properly support” the privilege, 25 “the party also must submit, at the time it files and serves its response to the discovery request, a 26 declaration or affidavit, under oath and penalty of perjury, from a responsible official within the PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 3 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 7 of 11 1 agency who has personal knowledge of the principal matters to be attested to in the affidavit or 2 declaration.” Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (emphasis added). 3 The court explained that compelling “direct involvement by such officials in decisions about 4 whether to invoke this privilege” on the front end is important for two reasons: (i) “[i]t educates 5 agency personnel about the competing interests and public policies that assertion of this privilege 6 implicates” and (ii) “enables agencies to develop consistent policies and practices relating to the 7 circumstances under which they will assert the privilege and the manner in which they will do 8 so.” Id. at 670 (emphasis added). 9 In sum, Defendants’ argument amounts to a candid acknowledgement that they did not 10 properly assert this privilege, and do not plan on properly asserting any privilege unless forced to 11 do so in the context of a motion to compel. If the Court is not inclined to grant the motion at this 12 time, Plaintiffs request the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing to address the privilege’s 13 balancing test. Alternatively, the Court can review these document in camera to determine 14 whether the balance favors disclosure. 15 B. 16 The Emrich Declaration Is Plainly Insufficient Because It Fails to Provide Specific Information about Each Document and Does Not Adequately Consider the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. 17 Setting aside whether Defendants must submit a declaration when using the privilege to 18 withhold or redact information, the declaration Defendants submitted with their motion falls well 19 short of meeting the requirements for this privilege for three reasons. First, Mr. Emrich does not 20 analyze any specific document; instead, he provides a generalized list of reasons purporting to 21 show why all these documents should be withheld. Dkt. 119-2, ¶ 12. The Court already rejected 22 similarly non-specific and vague explanations in its October 19, 2017 Order compelling 23 Defendants to produce a class list. Dkt. 98, *3-4. See also Bernat v. City of California City, No. 24 1:10-CV-00305, 2010 WL 4008361, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) (finding insufficient a 25 declaration that failed “to evaluate the privilege in light of each particular request [or] [make] 26 any showing demonstrating why the privilege should apply to the requests except in the most PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 4 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 8 of 11 1 general of terms”); S.E.C. v. Thrasher, 92 CIV. 6987 (JFK), 1995 WL 46681, *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. 2 Feb. 7, 1995), aff’d, 92 CIV. 6987 (JFK), 1995 WL 456402 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 1995) (finding 3 insufficient a law enforcement privilege declaration that made conclusory assertions of general 4 and speculative harm). Worse, allowing Defendants to wait until their opposition brief before 5 “formally” invoking the privilege means Plaintiffs have only six pages to challenge the adequacy 6 of the invocation. That is reason enough to reject Defendants’ argument. 7 Second, the Emrich Declaration never addresses the stipulated protective order entered in 8 this case, except to assert in passing that it would “not mitigate the risk.” Dkt. 119-2, ¶ 11. 9 There is no explanation about how disclosure under the protective order would threaten the 10 (speculative) interests outlined in his declaration. All the alleged harms flow from “public 11 disclosure” or disclosure to applicants. But disclosure under the protective order is not public. 12 See Dkt. 86, ¶ 4 (Protective Order). See also Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., C 06-00545 13 WHA, 2009 WL 5069133, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009), vacated and remanded on other 14 grounds, 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding “law enforcement privilege balancing test 15 militates in favor of authorizing disclosure” given “safeguards, such as a protective order”). 16 Third, perhaps more importantly than its flaws, the Emrich Declaration highlights why 17 the redacted and withheld documents are so important. Mr. Emrich concedes that they include 18 “policies and procedures [that] are integral to the proper vetting and adjudication of benefit 19 applications filed with USCIS,” and which directly relate to CARRP. Dkt. 119-2, ¶ 8. In other 20 words, Mr. Emrich acknowledges that these documents, which include “overarching, finalized 21 policies and procedures,” are highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. Id. Because the law 22 enforcement privilege is qualified, the Court should find that the balance weighs in favor of 23 disclosure and order these documents produced. See Dkt. 98 at *4 (ordering Defendants to 24 produce a class list, despite invoking law enforcement privilege, after finding balance weighed in 25 favor of disclosure and noting “there is a protective order in place”). 26 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 5 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 9 of 11 1 2 C. Defendants’ Privilege Logs Are Insufficient. Rule 26 makes clear that privilege assertions must be accompanied by privilege logs that 3 “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or 4 disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing the information itself privileged or 5 protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 6 Defendants cite many cases concerning adequate privilege logs, but none of them have anything 7 to do with the law enforcement privilege. 8 It is axiomatic that the adequacy of any given narrative necessarily depends on the 9 privilege being asserted. For some privileges, certain details are required, such as the identity of 10 the attorney providing advice when asserting the attorney/client privilege. Those details allow a 11 party to assess the privilege assertion per Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Defendants’ privilege logs are 12 inadequate because Defendants fail to identify the basis for the law enforcement privilege 13 (especially in light of the protective order), or the person asserting it—two prerequisites to 14 asserting this privilege. Omitting this information is akin to asserting the attorney/client 15 privilege, but not identifying the attorneys involved in the communication on the privilege log. 16 Ironically, although the Rule 26 requirements are designed to enable the receiving party to 17 “assess the claim [of privilege],” id., Defendants attempt to justify their decision not to provide 18 this information by stating that they have not formally asserted it in the first place. 19 A key requirement for the law enforcement privilege is identifying the person invoking it 20 and the basis for doing so. If Defendants were to follow the requirements necessary to invoke 21 this privilege before asserting it, then providing this information in their privilege log should not 22 be burdensome. And as the Kelly decision explains, forcing the party asserting this privilege to 23 meet these requirements—that is, forcing the responsible agency official to be directly involved 24 in this invocation, rather than outsourcing it to attorneys litigating the case—ensures that the 25 agency grapples with the “competing interests and public policies that assertion of this privilege 26 implicates.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 6 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DATED: February 23, 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/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 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 18 20 21 22 23 24 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/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 17 19 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 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MTC RE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)– 7 138663358.3 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 123 Filed 02/23/18 Page 11 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO 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 23rd day of February, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. 7 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 138663358.3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000