Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 22

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., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

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

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
APRIL 13, 2018
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1
2
3

I.
II.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
RELEVANT FACTS ......................................................................................................... 1 
A.
B.

5

Defendants Repeatedly Delay Production of Documents ...................................... 3 
Defendants Are Violating Multiple Court Orders ................................................. 8 
1.
Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Orders and the Civil Rules
Concerning the Production Schedule ......................................................... 8 

6

2.

7

3.

4

8
4.

9
10
11
12

III.
IV.

The Court Should Order Defendants to Pay Plaintiffs Their Reasonable
Attorneys’ Fees in Litigating These Discovery Disputes. ................................... 13 

B.

14
15

Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Order that Defendants
Identify Those Custodians Who Served on the President-Elect
Transition Team ....................................................................................... 12 

LEGAL STANDARD...................................................................................................... 12 
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 13 
A.

13

Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Orders to Produce the Class
List ............................................................................................................. 9 
Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Order Compelling
Production of Information About Why Named Plaintiffs Were
Subjected to CARRP................................................................................ 11 

V.

The Court Should Order Defendants to Produce Unredacted A-Files,
Produce an Unredacted Class List, and Fully Comply with its PETT Order
by Dates Certain ................................................................................................... 15 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 16 

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – i

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 22

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pages
CASES
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 1413385 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012)..........................13
Chilcutt v. United States,
4 F.3d 1313 (5th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................13
Cuviello v. Feld Entm’t Inc.,
No. 5:13-CV-03135-LHK, 2015 WL 877688 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015)..................................1
Hernandez v. Sessions,
No. EDCV16-620-JGB(KKx), 2018 WL 276687 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) ............................13
Lee v. Walters,
172 F.R.D. 421 (D. Or. 1997) ..................................................................................................13
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp.,
464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................12
Liew v. Breen,
640 F.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................13
Maness v. Meyers,
419 U.S. 449 (1975) .................................................................................................................12
Payne v. Exxon Corp.,
121 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................13
Perry v. Golub,
74 F.R.D. 360 (N.D. Ala. 1976)...............................................................................................14
Roadway Express v. Piper,
447 U.S. 752 (1980) .................................................................................................................12
Stetson v. Wash. State Dep’t of Corr.,
No. C15-5524 BHS-KLS, 2016 WL 4765852 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2016) ........................13
United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co.,
617 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................14

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – ii
138927215.4

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 22

1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

2

FED R. CIV. P. 37 .................................................................................................................... passim

3

Local Civil Rule 37 ................................................................................................................ passim

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - iii

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 22

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

“A basic rule of our legal system is that when courts issue orders, parties follow. This

3

case raises the question whether this rule applies to all parties, or only some. The answer should

4

be obvious—no party is above the orders of the court.” Cuviello v. Feld Entm’t Inc., No. 5:13-

5

CV-03135-LHK, 2015 WL 877688, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015). From the beginning of this

6

case, Defendants have defied this basic rule. They have failed to proceed with the diligence

7

required of a certified class action alleging statutory and constitutional violations that have

8

effectively denied immigration benefits to thousands of individuals. Their persistent and willful

9

failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with express orders of the Court

10
11

warrants the imposition of sanctions.
Defendants have offered no valid justification for their conduct. They recently stated that

12

they “will do their utmost to comply with any orders of this Court, to the best of their ability.”

13

Dkt. 130 at 2; see also Dkts. 124 at 2 (same), 117 at 3 (same). The Court has already recognized

14

that this is not sufficient: “[W]hen this court issues an order, I expect full compliance with the

15

court’s order. This isn’t an opportunity for the court to go back and say, ‘Well, we’re going to

16

give it our best effort.’ Best effort doesn’t comply with the rules of discovery.” Declaration of

17

Laura Hennessey in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants (“Hennessey

18

Decl.”), Ex. A (Hearing Transcript (Feb. 8, 2018) at 87:4-8).

19

Defendants contend that they have a different understanding of the Court’s orders. But

20

those orders are unambiguous, and Plaintiffs have been forced to relitigate settled issues. The

21

Court, moreover, has been clear, noting that it “has a full expectation that if it’s ordered by the

22

court, it’s complied with.” Id. at 87:9-10. Defendants have not heeded the Court’s advice, and

23

so Plaintiffs respectfully request sanctions for Defendants’ conduct.

24
25
26

II.

RELEVANT FACTS

On June 21, 2017, the Court largely denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’
claims and certified two nationwide classes of immigration benefit applicants subject to the
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 22

1

Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”) or a successor “extreme

2

vetting” program. Dkt. 69. In July 2017, the parties held their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

(“Rule”) 26(f) conference and agreed to complete fact discovery by May 29, 2018. Dkt. 79 at 1.

4

This timeline provided the parties with more than 10 months to complete discovery.

5

Plaintiffs served their First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants (“First

6

RFPs”) on August 1, 2017, which included 39 document requests. Defendants responded to the

7

First RFPs on September 5, 2017, with several broadly stated objections. Hennessey Decl., Ex.

8

B. These objections included categorical assertions of privilege as well as refusals to produce

9

emails, search for entire categories of documents, or provide privilege logs. See id. at 9. With

10

respect to the categories of information Defendants agreed to search and produce, Defendants

11

indicated that they would begin producing documents within 30 days of their objections and

12

would continue thereafter to produce documents “on a rolling basis” until the production was

13

“substantially complete,” which Defendants estimated would take six months. Id. at 5-6.

14

Within a week of receipt of Defendants’ objections, Plaintiffs expressed their concerns

15

with the breadth of Defendants’ objections and their request for a six-month timeline to produce

16

responsive documents. Hennessey Decl., Ex. C. After conferring, Plaintiffs moved to compel

17

three categories of documents.

18

First, Plaintiffs moved to compel Defendants to identify the members of the two

19

nationwide certified classes. Dkt. 91 at 3-6 (the “September Motion to Compel”). Plaintiffs

20

argued that Defendants had not properly asserted the law enforcement privilege and that, even if

21

they had, the relevance of the information outweighed any need for withholding. Id. The Court

22

agreed with Plaintiffs, finding disclosure was required because Defendants’ privilege assertion

23

was “vague” and based on “mere speculation and a hypothetical result.” Dkt. 98 at 3-4.

24

Second, Plaintiffs challenged Defendants’ similar privilege assertions over documents

25

showing the reasons that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) subjected the

26

Named Plaintiffs to CARRP. Dkt. 91 at 3-4. In their opposition brief, Defendants conceded that
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 2

Perkins Coie LLP

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

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 22

1

Plaintiffs’ document requests were proper. See Dkt. 94 (Defendants’ Response); Dkt. 95 at 4 n.2

2

(Plaintiffs’ Reply, pointing out Defendants’ omission). The Court ordered disclosure, ruling that

3

“why the Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP” is “relevant to the claims and Plaintiffs’

4

needs outweigh the Government’s reasons for withholding.” Dkt. 98.

5

Third, Plaintiffs challenged Defendants’ categorical refusal to produce any documents

6

related to the President’s January 27, 2017 and March 6, 2017 Executive Orders (“EOs”) on

7

immigration issues, as requested in Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 23 and 24. Dkt. 91 at 8-11. To the

8

extent Defendants intended to use the executive privilege to shield the President from discovery,

9

Plaintiffs requested that Defendants identify alternate sources of discoverable information. Id.

10

The Court ordered Defendants to identify alternate sources and custodians for RFP Nos. 23 and

11

24 within 30 days from its order (i.e., by late November 2017). Dkt. 98. Defendants refused to

12

identify alternate custodians and sources, forcing the parties to bring this issue to the Court’s

13

attention for a second time (Dkt. 103), and leading the Court to issue a second order to force

14

Defendants to comply, this time with more specific deadlines for Defendants’ production of

15

responsive documents (Dkt. 104).

16
17
18

Defendants have failed to comply with many of the Court’s rulings.
A.

Defendants Repeatedly Delay Production of Documents
In their responses to Plaintiffs’ First RFPs, Defendants stated that they needed six months

19

to substantially complete production of responsive documents. Hennessey Decl., Ex. B at 6.

20

Plaintiffs responded that the proposed six-month timeline was “unworkable” and “not

21

reasonable” because any production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ First RFPs would be

22

“dangerously close to the agreed discovery cutoff date.” Id., Ex. C at 1. Plaintiffs also requested

23

firm interim deadlines for production within the proposed six-month period. Id., Ex. D at 3.

24

Defendants insisted that the volume of documents required a six-month production

25

timeline, and suggested the parties extend the case schedule. Id., Ex. E at 2. When pressed,

26

Defendants reassured Plaintiffs that “Defendants do not contend, and have never contended, that
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 22

1

they cannot produce any responsive documents in less than six months. To the contrary,

2

Defendants have repeatedly indicated they intend to make rolling productions, but estimate that

3

the production timeline will take up to six months to substantially complete.” Id. Ex. F at 1.

4

Opting to compromise to resolve this dispute without the Court’s involvement, Plaintiffs

5

ultimately accepted the six-month timeline Defendants proposed. This was a significant

6

concession on Plaintiffs’ part, as it severely limited the time Plaintiffs would have to digest the

7

produced documents, serve follow-up written discovery requests, and conduct depositions before

8

the discovery cutoff set for May 29, 2018. In making this concession, Plaintiffs relied on

9

Defendants’ repeated representations that they would meet the March 5 deadline and would

10

make significant productions on a rolling basis leading up to that date to ensure that Plaintiffs

11

would not be required to process and respond to one massive March 5 production. On multiple

12

occasions, over the phone and in letters, Defendants affirmed their commitment to meeting this

13

March 5 deadline and rolling production framework. Hennessey Decl. ¶¶ 3 (detailing October

14

24, 2017 meet and confer), 4 (detailing November 14, 2017 meet and confer) & Exs. F at 1

15

(October 2, 2017 letter from Defendants (Defendants “estimate that the production timeline will

16

take up to six months to substantially complete”)), H at 2 (December 13, 2017 letter from

17

Defendants (“Defendants estimate that a first production will occur in mid-January 2018 with

18

rolling productions to occur thereafter.”)), G at 2 (December 19 letter from Defendants (“Our

19

goal remains to stay as close to that [six-month] timeline as possible, and, as Defendants have

20

previously stated, it is our intention to make rolling productions in advance of that date.”)).

21

Defendants did not follow through on these repeated assurances. As a result, during the

22

six months from September 5, 2017 to March 5, 2018, Plaintiffs received only six productions

23

totaling a mere 1,568 documents. Since March 5, 2018, Defendants have produced two heavily

24

redacted productions totaling an additional 912 documents.

25
26

Defendants have no justifiable basis for delay. In September, Defendants advised they
were prioritizing production of one particular noncustodial source called the “FDNS-ECN.” Id.,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 4

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 22

1

Ex. E at 1. Defendants frequently referred to this source as the “CARRP motherlode” (id. ¶ 2),

2

and represented that it “has the most extensive CARRP documents” and was “the best source of

3

discoverable information” (id., Ex. E at 1). Defendants produced responsive documents from

4

this source in October, but these documents were largely duplicative of documents the American

5

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) already had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act

6

(FOIA) request and litigation that Plaintiffs had identified in their initial disclosures.1 Id. ¶ 2.

7

For the remaining custodial and noncustodial sources identified, Defendants proposed

8

using a Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) protocol that would train an algorithm to

9

automatically identify responsive documents. Id., Ex. I (discussing November 14, 2017 meet

10

and confer). Defendants emphasized that they believed TAR would significantly expedite the

11

document review and production process. Id., Exs. J & G at 2. Despite their skepticism,

12

Plaintiffs opted, once again, for compromise: Plaintiffs agreed to allow Defendants to proceed

13

with TAR, based on Defendants’ repeated assurances that they still would meet their March 5,

14

2018 deadline. Using TAR, Defendants estimated that “a first production [would] occur in mid-

15

January 2018 with rolling productions to occur thereafter.” Id., Ex. H at 2; see also id., Ex. I at

16

1. On several occasions, Plaintiffs pressed Defendants on their promise to give rolling

17

productions before March 5 to avoid a document dump on that date. Understanding Plaintiffs’

18

stated needed to line up attorneys for document review, Defendants promised rolling

19

productions. See Id., Ex. H at 2.

20

However, by mid-January, Defendants had not produced any documents out of the TAR

21

process. When Plaintiffs inquired during a January 18, 2018 meet and confer, Defendants denied

22

having promised rolling productions beginning in mid-January. Id. ¶ 5. Moreover, during that

23
24
25
26

1
The new information contained in these documents was redacted based on Defendants’ interpretation of
the law enforcement and deliberative process privileges; the law enforcement privilege issue is addressed in separate
briefing. See Dkt. 109 (law enforcement privilege). The parties have met and conferred and are at impasse on this
issue and thus Plaintiffs anticipate that they will have to file another motion to compel regarding Defendants’ use of
the deliberative process privilege.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 5

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 22

1

meet and confer, Defendants could not predict how much additional time they might need. Id.

2

Defendants pointed to the iterative and unpredictable nature of the TAR process—a process

3

Defendants previously had insisted would expedite document production. Id. Defendants again

4

requested to extend the case schedule to accommodate a longer production timeline. Id. ¶ 6.

5

Defendants followed up with a written case schedule proposal on January 31. Id., Ex. K.

6

Despite concerns, Plaintiffs took Defendants’ proposal to extend the case schedule under

7

advisement. Id. ¶ 6. On March 5, 2018—the date by which Defendants had stated that

8

production of documents responsive to the First RFPs would be substantially complete—

9

Plaintiffs contacted Defendants. In response, Defendants stated that no documents would be

10

forthcoming that day and that Defendants still could not provide a date certain when the rolling

11

productions would begin. Id. ¶ 8. As reflected in the multiple status reports the parties have

12

since filed, Defendants steadfastly have refused to provide firm dates by which they anticipate

13

completing their production, other than to estimate that they will need at least six additional

14

months to complete it (i.e., a full year from service of the First RFPs). Dkt. 117 at 2

15

(“Defendants are unable at this time to propose an alternate production schedule.”); Dkt. 124 at 2

16

(“Defendants are unable at this time to propose an alternate production schedule, but continue to

17

expect . . . that to complete the review and production of all currently outstanding discovery will

18

take at least six months from present.”); Dkt. 130 at 2 (same).

19

Defendants now claim that a primary reason for their delay is that they did not allocate

20

adequate staff to complete the document review. Yet, Defendants have known the volume of

21

documents sought since August 2017, since the volume was their initial basis for seeking a six-

22

month timeline. If volume is the primary cause of delay, Defendants should have staffed up in

23

September 2017, rather than waiting until March 2018. Dkt. 130 at 2.

24

Defendants have treated the Court’s orders as optional, rather than binding directives,

25

placing them in direct violation of the Court’s orders, while at the same time creating indefinite

26

and escalating delay. For example, two of Plaintiffs’ First RFPs (RFP Nos. 23 and 24) requested
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 6

Perkins Coie LLP

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

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 11 of 22

1

information related to the “extreme vetting” portions of the two EOs. Because Defendants

2

refused to produce responsive documents, Plaintiffs included this issue in their September

3

Motion to Compel. Dkt. 91 at 8-11. On October 19, the Court ordered the parties to “meet and

4

confer within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to discuss alternative custodians and

5

non-custodial sources of information for any discovery order which the Government asserts this

6

specific [executive] privilege.” Dkt. 98 at 5. During the parties’ conference, however,

7

Defendants took the position that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any discovery concerning the EOs

8

because any “extreme vetting” programs do not directly relate to CARRP. Dkt. 103 at 4-5. The

9

parties filed a joint motion under Local Civil Rule 37 to address the relevance of the EOs and

10

Defendants’ obligation to provide alternative custodians and document sources to avoid assertion

11

of the executive privilege. Dkt. 103. The Court found Defendants’ request for further

12

negotiation on the definition of “extreme vetting” to be “disingenuous,” and cautioned that “the

13

court will not require Plaintiffs to file duplicitous motions to compel.” Dkt. 104 at 4 (the

14

“January 10, 2018 Order”). The Court accordingly ordered, for the second time, that the parties

15

confer within 21 days to “discuss alternative custodians, non-custodial sources, search terms, and

16

other means of review that Defendants will use to search for relevant documents.” Id. Pursuant

17

to the January 10, 2018 Order, Defendants would have 10 days to perform their search and an

18

additional 30 days to produce relevant documents. Id. Despite the Court’s admonitions,

19

Defendants still did not comply. Defendants pushed the date of the parties’ meet and confer

20

back until right before the Court-ordered deadline, and the parties again had to seek Court

21

intervention to resolve their dispute about the custodians and search terms that should apply.

22

Dkt. 105 at 1.

23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 7

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 12 of 22

1

B.

2

1.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Defendants Are Violating Multiple Court Orders
Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Orders and the Civil Rules Concerning
the Production Schedule

Defendants are violating the Court’s October 19, 2017 (Dkt. 98) and January 10, 2018
(Dkt. 104) Orders, both of which compel Defendants to search for and produce documents
responsive to RFP Nos. 23 and 24 on specific timelines. During a hearing on this issue in
February, the Court underscored the importance of these timelines, specifying that “I want very
specific deadlines, with expectations of when these documents are going to actually be
produced.” Hennessey Decl., Ex. A at 86:23-25. During the follow-up telephonic hearing, the
Court gave Defendants additional time to propose dates certain for production to see if the
parties could come to an agreement without additional Court intervention. Id., Ex. L at 22:625:12.
Plaintiffs—in another significant concession—offered to use the case schedule proposal
that Defendants themselves put together in late-January, which contemplated production of
documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ First RFPs, except for RFP No. 24, between March 12, 2018
and April 23, 2018, and the production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Second RFPs, plus
RFP No. 24, between April 23, 2018 and May 28, 2018. Id. Ex. L at 24:22-25:4 & Ex. K; Dkt.
116 at 1-2. The Court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ willingness to compromise and indicated on
February 14, 2018 that it was inclined to adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed timelines. Hennessey Decl.,
Ex. L at 25:9-12. Rather than compromise, or comply with the Court’s order for specific
timelines, Defendants have submitted status reports stating that they cannot predict how long
production will take and cannot in good faith commit to any deadlines, not even the deadlines
that they themselves proposed in correspondence to Plaintiffs. Dkt. 117 at 2; Dkt. 124 at 2; Dkt.
130 at 2.

25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 8

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 13 of 22

1

2.

2

On October 19, 2017, the Court ordered Defendants to produce a Class List. Dkt. 98 at

Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Orders to Produce the Class List

3

2-4. The Court rejected Defendants’ assertion that disclosure is protected by the law

4

enforcement privilege, finding Defendants’ invocation to be “vague” and “brief,” “consist[ing]

5

of mere speculation and a hypothetical result.” Id. at 3-4. Moreover, the Court found “the

6

balance weigh[s] in favor of disclosure.” Id. at 4.

7

Defendants moved to reconsider the Court’s order that they produce a Class List (Dkt.

8

99), which the Court subsequently denied (Dkt. 102). On November 29, Plaintiffs requested an

9

update on when Defendants would be producing the Class List. See Hennessey Decl., Ex. I at 4.

10

On December 13, Defendants reassured Plaintiffs that they were “developing a list of potential

11

class members.” Id., Ex. H at 2. Defendants later confirmed they would produce the Class List

12

“not . . . later than . . . March 5, 2018.” Id., Ex. G at 3.

13

As the March 5 deadline approached, Plaintiffs inquired at least twice as to the status of

14

the Class List. Id., Ex. M. Defendants did not respond to these inquiries. In the Joint Status

15

Report the parties submitted after the February 8 hearing, Defendants affirmed their commitment

16

to produce the Class List by March 5, but noted that they “reserve the right to seek from the

17

Court relief, as may be determined to be necessary.” Dkt. 114 at 4. During the February 14

18

telephonic hearing, the Court warned Defendants that the issue had “already been ruled on by the

19

court, so the court doesn’t want this to be a moving target. If you’ve identified that March 5th is

20

going to be the date of actual production, the court expects full compliance, because that fits

21

within the context of the two prior orders that have already been issued by this court.”

22

Hennessey Decl., Ex. L at 26:17-22. The Court later underscored this point:

23
24
25
26

I just want to reemphasize, counsel, that two orders have already
been issued. I don’t know how to make this any clearer of what the
court’s expectations are. And unless there’s something that’s
extraordinarily different that I’m not aware of or hasn’t already
been identified by either the parties, or the court’s order, I expect
full compliance in a timely fashion without further delay. So I want
to make sure that the defendants clearly understand that. And,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 9

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 14 of 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

again, the dates that I have identified and you proposed are not
moving targets.
Id. at 28:6-15 (emphasis added).
Rather than comply, or seek relief from that deadline, Defendants filed a motion for
protective order seeking additional restrictions on the Class List. Dkt. 126. As Plaintiffs detailed
in their opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order (Dkt. 127), there is nothing
“extraordinarily different” about the issues raised in Defendants’ motion or the relief they are
seeking—there is no reason Defendants could not have moved for exactly the same relief in late
November after the Court denied their motion to reconsider the compelled production of this
information. Instead, Defendants waited until four days before the production was due to seek to
modify their obligation to produce the Class List.
Moreover, Defendants violated their own commitment, adopted by the Court as an order
during the February 14 hearing, to produce a Class List by March 5. Rather than produce a Class
List, Defendants produced a document that redacts—even from Plaintiffs’ counsel—the names,
Alien Registration Numbers, and application dates for every person on the list. Hennessey Decl.
¶ 7. Redacting this information defeats the entire purpose of Plaintiffs’ request for the Class
List: to understand who is subject to CARRP and how long their applications have been delayed.
Defendants’ motion for protective order does not seek relief from the March 5 deadline, but
rather to impose heightened restrictions on the dissemination of this information. Plaintiffs
agreed to comply with these heightened restrictions while Defendants’ motion is pending, but
Defendants nevertheless refuse to provide an unredacted Class List “without a supplemental
protective order in place that recognizes the limitations regarding access by class members.” Id.,
Ex. N. Defendants also have suggested that they “will need to consider appellate options if we
do not prevail on this issue.” Id. In sum, Defendants have known since October that they
needed to produce a Class List, waited until four days before the production was due to seek
heightened protections, and have unilaterally decided that they do not need to comply with the

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 10

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 15 of 22

1

Court’s order for “full compliance” until they have time to adjudicate an appeal to achieve

2

protection they could have sought months ago.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3.

Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Order Compelling Production of
Information About Why Named Plaintiffs Were Subjected to CARRP

The Court’s October 19 Order compelled Defendants to produce information showing the
reasons why Named Plaintiffs had been subjected to CARRP. Dkt. 98 at 4. The Court reasoned
that, as with the Class List, “this information is relevant to the claims and Plaintiffs’ needs
outweigh the Government’s reasons for withholding.” Id. Defendants did not move to
reconsider this portion of the Court’s order. See Dkt. 100 at 2 n.2. Thus, Defendants have been
under Court order to produce this information since October 19—for over five months.
According to Defendants, the relevant information regarding why Named Plaintiffs were
subjected to CARRP is in their Alien Files (“A-Files”). During a December 15, 2017 meet and
confer, Defendants promised to produce the A-Files of the Named Plaintiffs by late January,
which Defendants later confirmed in writing. Hennessey Decl., Ex. O. Defendants further stated
that any other responsive information regarding why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP
also would be produced by March 5. Id.
On February 28, 2018, Defendants produced the Named Plaintiffs’ A-Files but redacted
from the files all substantive information regarding why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to
CARRP. On March 6, 2018, Defendants claimed that they had redacted the A-Files due to
privilege concerns expressed by unidentified government agencies that the Court had not yet
adjudicated. Id., Ex. P. Defendants claim that these unidentified “third party government
agencies” believe that information in the A-Files is subject to the law enforcement privilege and
that “Defendants are not able to release [the information] without approval from the agencies that
‘own’ the information.” Id. Defendants later asserted the deliberative process privilege also
applies to this information. Id., Ex. Q.

26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 11

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 16 of 22

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel expressly covered the reasons why Named Plaintiffs were

2

subjected to CARRP. Dkt. 91 at 3-6. The Court expressly ordered Defendants to produce this

3

information because the relevance outweighed Defendants’ reasons for withholding. Dkt. 98 at

4

4. Although Defendants had the opportunity (in their response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel)

5

to argue for withholding this information, Defendants made no such argument.2 Defendants then

6

accepted the Court’s order, did not move to reconsider this issue, and promised to produce

7

Plaintiffs’ A-Files by late January. Defendants have violated the Court’s October 19 Order, and

8

the Court should not be forced to address this issue yet again.

9

4.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

During the February 14, 2018, hearing, the Court expressly ordered Defendants to
identify those custodians who also served on the President-Elect Transition Team (“PETT”).
Hennessey Decl., Ex. L at 20:13-15. Plaintiffs had suggested this compromise position in light
of Defendants’ assertion that they did not have custody or control over PETT documents.
Before, during, and after that hearing, Defendants agreed that John Kelly was a custodian
(because he previously served as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security).
Defendants did not move for reconsideration of that order as it related to John Kelly. Instead of
complying, however, Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiffs on March 9, 2018, stating that they
“have not inquired directly with Gen. Kelly whether he was on the President-Elect Transition
Team, and do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to do so.” Id., Ex. R at 2. This is a direct
violation of the Court’s order.
III.

22
23
24

Defendants Are Violating the Court’s Order that Defendants Identify Those
Custodians Who Served on the President-Elect Transition Team

LEGAL STANDARD

It is a “basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with
promptly.” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975). Courts possess the authority—both

25
26

2

Plaintiffs will respond to Defendants’ privilege assertions in a forthcoming motion to compel.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 12

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 17 of 22

1

inherently and expressly under Rule 37—to levy sanctions for those who do not comply with

2

court orders. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2007).

3

Rule 37(b)(2)(C) empowers the court to issue monetary sanctions when a party has failed

4

to comply with discovery orders. The court may also, among other things, (1) order that the

5

subject matter of the discovery shall be taken as established, or (2) prohibit the disobedient party

6

from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-

7

(vii); see also Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 (1980).

8

IV.

9

ARGUMENT

Defendants repeatedly have violated the Court’s orders and the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure and have failed to comply with discovery-related commitments made to Plaintiffs and

11

the Court. Defendants’ conduct has severely prejudiced Plaintiffs, not only by causing

12

unjustifiable delays, but also by driving up the costs of litigation. Plaintiffs seek the sanctions

13

identified below to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders and move forward with this case.

14

A.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The Court Should Order Defendants to Pay Plaintiffs Their Reasonable Attorneys’
Fees in Litigating These Discovery Disputes.
If a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, “the court must order the

disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the
failure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Hernandez v. Sessions, No.
EDCV16-620-JGB(KKx), 2018 WL 276687, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (awarding attorneys’
fees and costs of $22,820 incurred in bringing a motion to compel against the government);
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 1413385, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 23, 2012) (imposing monetary sanctions for failing to comply with prior discovery
order). A showing of willfulness, bad faith, or fault is not required. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121
F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997). The disobedient party bears the burden of showing that the failure
to comply with the discovery order was justified or that special circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust. Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1981). Monetary sanctions also

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 13

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 18 of 22

1

are appropriate under Rule 37(d) for violations of discovery obligations outlined in the Federal

2

Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Stetson v. Wash. State Dep’t of Corr., No. C15-5524 BHS-

3

KLS, 2016 WL 4765852, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2016); Lee v. Walters, 172 F.R.D. 421,

4

425 (D. Or. 1997).

5

Rule 37 sanctions apply to government actors who engage in discovery abuse. See

6

Chilcutt v. United States, 4 F.3d 1313, 1325-27 (5th Cir. 1993). In fact, “[t]he effectiveness of

7

and need for harsh measures is particularly evident when the disobedient party is the

8

government” because “[g]overnmental agencies which are charged with the enforcement of laws

9

should set the example of compliance with Court orders.” United States v. Sumitomo Marine &

10

Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Perry v. Golub, 74 F.R.D. 360, 366

11

(N.D. Ala. 1976)).

12

Defendants’ delays have dramatically driven up the costs of litigation. Their repeated

13

misconduct has forced Plaintiffs to incur fees and costs needlessly in (i) bringing motions to

14

compel, (ii) repeatedly meeting and conferring with Defendants on their deficient responses, and

15

(iii) bringing this motion in response to Defendants’ continued failure to fully comply with its

16

Rule 37 obligations and the Court’s orders. Rule 37 requires Defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs

17

for attorneys’ fees and costs caused by their violation of multiple orders of this Court. FED. R.

18

CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Defendants’ tactics, if allowed to persist, would make it very difficult for

19

Plaintiffs to move forward with this case. These delays are also harmful apart from the monetary

20

burdens. Each unnecessary delay allows unconstitutional programs to persist, subjecting

21

thousands of individuals to illegal and discriminatory extreme vetting programs like CARRP.

22

Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask that the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable

23

attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating these discovery disputes, starting with the September

24

Motion to Compel. The declarations of Matt Adams, Sameer Ahmed, Nicholas P. Gellert, Hugh

25

Handeyside, Trina Realmuto, Carol Sobel, and Stacy Tolchin, submitted herewith, detail the fees

26

Plaintiffs seek to recover and the rate structure employed. Of course, the time detailed does not
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 14

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 19 of 22

1

include the time Plaintiffs have spent in presenting this motion for sanctions, as that work is

2

ongoing.

3

B.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The Court Should Order Defendants to Produce Unredacted A-Files, Produce an
Unredacted Class List, and Fully Comply with its PETT Order by Dates Certain
Since the Court’s October 19, 2017 Order (Dkt. 98), Defendants have known about their

obligations to provide discovery on why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP.
Defendants further assured Plaintiffs that the Named Plaintiffs’ A-Files would be produced by
late January and that all other information regarding the reasons Plaintiffs were subjected to
CARRP would be produced by the March 5 production deadline. Hennessey Decl., Ex. O. But
the A-Files Defendants produced in late February, in addition to being a month late, also
redacted the content regarding why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP. Defendants
now assert that the A-File redactions are grounded in claims of third-party law enforcement and
deliberative process privilege.
Defendants should have raised these third-party concerns in their opposition to Plaintiffs’
motion to compel the production of why Named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP. Dkt. 94.
At that time, these unidentified third parties could have sought intervention to oppose Plaintiffs’
motion to compel to assert their own privileges. Defendants also could have raised this issue in
their motion to reconsider the Court’s October 19, 2017 Order. Dkt. 73. Defendants elected not
to take any of these actions, and their belated assertion of privilege for unidentified third parties
contravenes the Court’s order compelling discovery. Dkt. 98.
Likewise, Defendants have known since the Court’s October 19, 2017 Order (Dkt. 98)
and the Court’s subsequent order denying Defendants’ motion to reconsider (Dkt. 102) that they
were required to produce a Class List. Defendants committed in writing to produce the Class
List by March 5, 2018 (Dkt. 114 at 4)—a commitment that the Court adopted as an order during
the February 14, 2018 telephonic hearing (Hennessey Decl., Ex. L at 26:14-22, 28:6-15). On
March 5, 2018 Defendants produced a list that redacts all of the key information about the

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 15

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 20 of 22

1

members of the certified classes: who has been subjected to CARRP and how long those

2

applications have been pending. Hennessey Decl. ¶ 7. Instead of complying with the Court’s

3

order or seeking relief from the deadline, Defendants moved for a protective order and raised the

4

same arguments the Court already rejected when it ordered production of the Class List and

5

denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider.

6

Finally, Defendants similarly have known since the February 14, 2018 hearing that they

7

were under Court order to tell Plaintiffs which custodians were part of the PETT. In fact,

8

Defendants’ March 9, 2018 letter acknowledges that “the Court . . . issued a verbal order” to this

9

effect. Hennessey Decl., Ex. R. With respect to one custodian (John Kelly), however,

10

Defendants elected not to comply with the Court’s express order, deciding they did “not believe

11

it is appropriate or necessary” to do so. Id.

12

Plaintiffs accordingly request that the Court use its authority under Rule 37 to order

13

Defendants to comply with its prior orders by producing, by dates certain, (1) unredacted copies

14

of Named Plaintiffs’ A-Files, (2) a complete and unredacted Class List, to be updated every 90

15

days thereafter, and (3) inform Plaintiffs whether John Kelly served on the PETT.

16
17

V.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions

18

Against Defendants and order relief as detailed in the Proposed Order submitted herewith. As

19

reflected in the Proposed Order, Plaintiffs request that the Court note that it is prepared, if

20

compliance continues to be an issue, to impose further sanctions, including deeming certain facts

21

as admitted by Defendants, as that may be the only way to ensure Defendants fully comply with

22

its discovery orders.

23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 16

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 21 of 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DATED: March 29, 2018
s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
Email: 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 Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
Email: 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
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, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Email: 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
Email: 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 Street Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Email: 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’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 17

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 137 Filed 03/29/18 Page 22 of 22

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

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

3

foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS via the

4

CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such filing to all counsel of record herein.

5

DATED this 29th day of March, 2018 at Seattle, Washington.

6
By: s/Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey, #47447
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

7
8
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

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 137-1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 4

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

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

7
8
9
10

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

11
12
13

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

14

Defendants.

No. 2:17-CV-00094-RAJ
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
APRIL 13, 2018
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

15
16

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against

17

Defendants. Upon reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, hearing the arguments of

18

counsel, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19
20
21

1.

Monetary Sanctions: Defendants are monetarily sanctioned in an amount of

$219,974.02, which shall be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
2.

Within seven (7) days of this order, Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs

22

unredacted copies of the Named Plaintiffs’ A-Files. Also within seven (7) days of the this order,

23

Defendants must produce other information detailing the reasons why Named Plaintiffs were

24

subjected to CARRP, per the Court’s October 19, 2017 Order.

25
26

3.

Within seven (7) days of this order, Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs a

complete and unredacted Class List, per the Court’s written orders of October 19, 2017 and
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS – 1
No. 2:17-cv-00097-RAJ
139075486.1

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 137-1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 4

1

January 10, 2018, and its verbal order of February 14, 2018. Every ninety (90) days thereafter,

2

Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs an updated Class List that is unredacted.

3

4.

Within seven (7) days of this order, Defendants must inform Plaintiffs, in writing,

4

whether John Kelly served on the President-Elect Transition Team, pursuant to the Court’s oral

5

order on February 14, 2018.

6

5.

Should compliance continue to be an issue, the Court may impose additional

7

sanctions for Defendants’ discovery misconduct, including but not limited to an order deeming

8

certain facts to be admitted.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _____ day of _________, 2018.

11
12
_______________________________________
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS – 2
No. 2:17-cv-00097-RAJ
139075486.1

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 137-1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 4

1

Presented by:

2

s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
Email: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
sahmed@aclusocal.org

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

s/Matt Adams
s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid
Matt Adams #28287
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
Email: 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
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, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Email: 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
Email: 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 Street Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Email: 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
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS – 3
No. 2:17-cv-00097-RAJ
139075486.1

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 137-1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the
foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such
filing to all counsel of record herein.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2018, at Seattle, Washington.

8

By: s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey, #47447
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 17-cv-00094 RAJ) – 1
139100138.2

Perkins Coie LLP

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