Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., 12 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 15 16 17 DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendants. No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: MAY 4, 2018 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 17 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ invocation of the deliberative process privilege on the grounds that the privilege is inapplicable in this case because the government’s intent is at issue, that the privilege must yield because Plaintiffs’ need outweighs Defendants’ non-disclosure interests, and that Defendants did not properly invoke the privilege. The deliberative process privilege is a critical protection to enable effective governmental decision-making, and it would be highly unusual to pierce it based upon the generalized showing made by Plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs must make a strong showing of malfeasance to probe the mental processes of agency decisionmakers. This they have not done. Moreover, a fundamental problem with Plaintiffs’ argument for piercing the privilege is that their allegations of discriminatory conduct are made exclusively in counts 2, 3, and 6, which challenge two Executive Orders no longer in force—not CARRP, which has been in existence since 2008. Further, Plaintiffs are mistaken that their need for privileged material outweighs the government’s interest in non-disclosure, and that Defendants have not properly invoked the privilege. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 17 At the time that Plaintiffs initially challenged Defendants’ assertion of the deliberative 18 process privilege, eight production volumes by Defendants were at issue. See Decl. of Joseph F. 19 Carilli (“Carilli Decl.”) at ¶ 3 (attached hereto as Ex. 1). Defendants have produced privilege 20 logs for each document production. 1 Id. at ¶ 4. Defendants’ document production in this matter 21 continues bi-weekly. On March 7, 2018, via telephone conference, Plaintiffs categorically 22 challenged Defendants’ claim of the deliberative process privilege. Id. at ¶ 5. Defendants asked 23 Plaintiffs to identify the specific documents for which Plaintiffs were challenging the claim of 24 privilege, but Plaintiffs declined to do so. Id. Plaintiffs then moved to compel. Id. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs understate the number of privilege logs produced. See Dkt. 152 at 2. At present, Defendants have produced privilege logs for Defendant USCIS 001 through USCIS 008. Ex. 1 at ¶ 4. Privilege logs for Defendant USCIS 009 and 010 are forthcoming. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The deliberative process privilege protects the government’s decision-making process by shielding from disclosure documents “reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975). “[P]redecisional” and “deliberative” materials are shielded from disclosure. See Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng'g Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975); Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior, 189 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 1999), aff'd, 532 U.S. 1 (2001); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 735-36 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing cases). A document is “predecisional” if it precedes a final agency decision or policy, and is “deliberative” if reflects the process by which a decision or policy was formulated. See Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001); National Wildlife Fed’n v. United States Forest Service, 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The deliberative process privilege is qualified, and may not apply where, upon balancing, the court determines a party’s need for privileged material outweighs the government’s interest in non-disclosure. See FTC v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). A court must balance several factors, including: (1) the relevance of the evidence; (2) the availability of other evidence; (3) the government’s role in the litigation; and (4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions. Id. 20 ARGUMENT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Plaintiffs Apply the Wrong Standard to Pierce the Privilege Based on Alleged Government Misconduct and Do Not Satisfy the Proper Standard. Plaintiffs seek to pierce the deliberative process privilege with regard to every document produced thus far, without any individualized showing of need with respect to those materials. Their argument relies wholly on In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Office of Comptroller of Currency, 145 F.3d 1422 (D.C. Cir. 1998), on reh’g in part, 156 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1998). See Dkt. 152 at 3-7. The court in In re Subpoena ordered disclosure of deliberative processprotected documents, declining to apply the privilege to certain materials of the FDIC, the DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 17 1 2 3 4 Federal Reserve Board, and the Comptroller of the Currency, in light of the movant’s allegation of bad faith cooperation between the agencies. Id. at 1425 (“If the plaintiff’s cause of action is directed at the government’s intent, [] it makes no sense to permit the government to use the privilege as a shield.”). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Applying In re Subpoena, Plaintiffs contend that “Defendants’ decision-making process is central to this case” given Plaintiffs’ allegation that “Defendants created an extra-statutory internal vetting program that discriminates on the basis of religion and/or national origin[.]” Dkt. 152 at 10. But the special rule of In re Subpoena applied where Congress had specifically enacted a statute that “requires a showing of the government’s intent” and “the cause of action is directed at the agency’s subjective motivation.” 145 F.3d at 1425 n.2. That special rule does not apply in challenges to administrative action under the APA, as the D.C. Circuit acknowledged on rehearing. In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on the Comptroller of the Currency, 156 F.3d 1279, 1279 (D.C.Cir.1998) (on petition for reh'g) (In re Subpoena standard does not apply in APA case); see Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 134 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1380 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (same); Arizona Rehab. Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 185 F.R.D. 263, 267 (D. Ariz. 1998) (to apply In re Subpoena and “find the privilege does not exist in this APA challenge would undermine the very basis for its existence”); Pub. Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. Beaudreu, No. CV 101073, 2013 WL 12193038, at *4 (D.D.C. May 16, 2013). A much higher bar is set in this context to inquire into the subjective motivation that underlies agency actions. In the context of a case like this one, the Supreme Court has explained that “there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior before [inquiry into the mental processes of the administrative decisionmaker] may be made.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971) (emphasis added); see In re Subpoena, 156 F.3d at 1279 (must be “showing of bad faith or improper behavior” under Citizens to Preserve Overton Park to inquire into decisionmaking process). 2 Plaintiffs have not made such a showing here. 26 27 28 2 Relatedly, the Supreme Court also has held that, “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [Executive Branch officials] have properly discharged their official duties,” and must apply “rigorous standard[s] for discovery in aid of” discriminatory enforcement claims. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 468. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO Civil Division COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 3 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 17 1 2 3 4 Plaintiffs showing also fails even under the erroneous In re Subpoena test. First, Plaintiffs have not alleged discriminatory intent or misconduct specific to the CARRP, independent of the Executive Orders. Relatedly, they do not identify a discrete factual basis to pierce the privilege. 5 6 1. Plaintiffs do not challenge the government’s intent in connection with the bulk of documents produced 7 The Second Amended Complaint does not allege discriminatory intent with respect to 8 CARRP or the CARRP decision-making process. The allegations of discriminatory intent in the 9 complaint (in counts Two, Three, and Six) 3 all relate to the 2017 Executive Orders issued nine 10 years after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) began using CAARP. 4 11 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel highlights their misplaced reliance on the Executive 12 Orders for their intent-based arguments. From among the paragraphs Plaintiffs cite in their 13 motion to try to show that discriminatory intent is at issue here, four of five relate to the 14 Executive Orders. See Dkt. 152 at 6 (citing Dkt. 47 at ¶¶ 268, 269, 271, 272). Although the fifth 15 paragraph refers to CARRP, that paragraph merely alleges that CARRP “labels applicants 16 national security concerns” using criteria that “turn on national origin.” That allegation makes an 17 objective claim about the criteria used to designate a person a “national security concern,” does 18 not allege discriminatory intent in the creation or execution of CARRP, and does not substantiate 19 the conclusory and erroneous claim that CARRP subjects are selected based upon national 20 origin. See Dkt. 152 at 6 (citing Dkt. 47 at ¶ 76). In short, Plaintiffs attempt to use allegations 21 about the intent motivating the Executive Orders to bootstrap their argument that the Court 22 should pierce the privilege over documents relating to CARRP, as to which they have not alleged 23 discriminatory intent. 5 24 25 26 27 28 3 Count Two alleges Defendants interpret the First and Second EOs “to authorize the suspension of immigration benefit applications [of the named Plaintiffs] and reiterates Defendants’ “statutory and constitutional duty to adjudicate . . . in a nondiscriminatory manner.” See Dkt. 47 at ¶¶ 254-59. Count Three alleges that the intent behind the EOs is to “target a specific religious faith” in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Id. at ¶¶ 260-61. Count Six alleges Defendants suspended adjudication of benefit applications based on country of origin with a “discriminatory animus and discriminatory intent.” Id. at ¶¶ 267-72. 4 USCIS began using CARRP in 2008; the Executive Orders in question issued in 2017. See Dkt. 47 at ¶ 10. 5 Prior to issuance of either Executive Order, Plaintiffs never questioned the government’s “intent” as a basis for Plaintiffs’ challenge to CARRP. Compare Dkt. 1 (lacking discrimination allegations) with Dkts. 17, 47 (alleging, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO Civil Division COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 4 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 Defendants’ document production to date primarily relates to CARRP documents. 6 Because these documents do not concern to the Executive Orders, they do not relate to Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Defendants’ intent. As such, even applying the erroneous logic of In re Subpoena, Plaintiffs’ allegations of discriminatory intent do not suffice to permit piercing the deliberative process privilege with respect to the documents at issue here. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Defendants also submit that to the extent this Court wants to consider the need to pierce the deliberative privilege based upon the two executive orders, that would also not be warranted, and the Court should await the ruling of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. That case is addressing related claims that the travel proclamation – issued after the two executive orders – was motivated by an improper animus and will therefore provide significant guidance in this area. See Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 (S. Ct.) (argued Apr. 25, 2018). 12 13 2. Plaintiffs do not meet the standard for piercing the deliberative process privilege 14 Even in non-APA cases where a party seeks to disclose of deliberative process-privileged 15 material based on alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs must identify “a discrete factual basis for the 16 belief that ‘the deliberative information sought may shed light on government misconduct.’” See 17 Alexander v. F.B.I., 186 F.R.D. 154, 164–65 (D.D.C. 1999) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 18 729, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1997)); see also Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 19 (upholding application of the deliberative process privilege and declining to find waiver where 20 plaintiff “ma[de] no credible claims that improper factors motivated [the] enforcement action”). 21 Plaintiffs do not do so and therefore do not meet the standard to pierce the privilege. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 among other things, “intent” to “target a specific religious faith” while preferring others; violation of the Establishment Clause “by not pursuing a course of neutrality with regard to different religious faiths;” and “discriminatory animus” and “discriminatory intent” to suspend benefits adjudications based on “country of origin”). 6 Of the 2,456 documents produced in volumes USCIS 001 through USCIS 008, 459 documents were responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production for documents related to E.O. 13769 and E.O. 13780. See Ex. 1, ¶ 6b. Of those 459 documents, Defendants claimed the deliberative process privilege over 75 documents, and only 70 documents relate to USCIS actions under E.O. 13769 and E.O. 13780. See id., ¶ 6e. These 70 EO-related documents represent merely 9.7% of Defendants’ deliberative process claims in production volumes USCIS 001 through USCIS 008. See id., 6b,e. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO Civil Division COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 5 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 As explained above, the documents Defendants have produced are predominantly CARRP-related. Accordingly, the complaint must meet the piercing standard as to the CARRPspecific allegations. The complaint, however, identifies no “discrete factual basis” specific to CARRP and independent of the Executive Orders to support the claim that the privileged materials will “shed light” on discriminatory animus as a motivating factor for USCIS’s adoption of CARRP. See generally Dkt. 47. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In an effort to remedy this lack of a discrete showing, Plaintiffs’ motion attempts to read allegations into the complaint that are not present. For example, to “shed light on whether discriminatory animus motivated [Defendants’] enactment of CARRP,” Plaintiffs argue the privileged documents they seek “are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.” See Dkt. 152 at 8. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause claims (Counts Three and Six), however, lack any reference to CARRP. See Dkt. 47 at ¶¶ 260-61, 267-72. These claims instead cite the “First EO” and “Second EO” as examples of intentional targeting of a specific religious faith, with no explanation of whether CARRP is a part of this alleged targeting and, if so, how CARRP is a part of it. 7 And with respect to the two Executive Orders – which have limited relevance to this suit – plaintiffs have not identified the sort of discrete factual basis for misconduct that justifies piercing the privilege. The Court should also await the Hawaii ruling before addressing that claim. In sum, Plaintiffs have not identified a discrete factual basis showing that the deliberative material they seek would shed light on government misconduct. B. 22 The Balancing Approach is the More Reasoned Approach to Application of the Deliberative Process Privilege 23 We have shown there no “strong showing of bad faith” here (Citizens to Preserve 24 Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 420, and no “discrete factual basis” to conclude that deliberative 25 material would reveal misconduct (Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 746). Further, the balancing 26 27 28 7 The other counts lack allegations of intent or motive, alleging arbitrary and capricious action, unauthorized suspension of adjudication in violation of due process, unreasonable delay, failure to provide a notice and comment period, and creation of ultra vires naturalization requirements. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 6 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 17 1 2 approach articulated by the Ninth Circuit also weighs against piercing the privilege. See Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161. 3 4 1. This Court should apply FTC v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984), rather than the D.C. Circuit’s approach in In re Subpoena 5 The Ninth Circuit has not adopted In re Subpoena, 8 and Defendants are unaware of any 6 other circuit decision requiring the privilege to yield simply upon a party’s challenge to 7 government intent in the decision-making process. 9 Instead, the great weigh of authority, 8 including Citizens to Preserve Overton Park and Sealed Case, weigh strongly in the other 9 direction, first requiring some affirmative showing of misconduct when that is the basis for the 10 claim that the privilege should be pierced. Significantly, the Court of Federal Claims directly 11 eschews the D.C. Circuit’s approach of automatically piercing the deliberative process privilege 12 where government intent is relevant to the claim. First Heights Bank, FSB v. United States, 46 13 Fed. Cl. 312, 322 (2000) (applying a balancing approach weighing evidentiary need against 14 potential harm from disclosure and “declin[ing] to follow the reasoning of In re Subpoenas [sic] 15 to the extent that it supports an automatic bar on assertions of deliberative process privilege in 16 any case where the Government’s intent is potentially relevant.”). In First Heights, the plaintiffs 17 challenged government actions pursuant to federal financial assistance agreements, alleging that 18 certain losses incurred by the plaintiffs resulted from an intentional government effort to 19 minimize government losses. Id. Despite allegations implicating government intent, the Federal 20 Circuit balanced plaintiffs’ need for the documents against potential harm to the government 21 from disclosure, piercing the deliberative process privilege only upon finding the government 22 failed to “articulate[] any specific or significant harm that would result from disclosure[.]” Id. at 23 322. 24 25 26 27 28 8 Plaintiffs effectively acknowledge no other circuit has adopted the In re Subpoena approach. See Dkt. 152 at 4. 9 In re Sealed Case cited Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir. 1995) in support of the “routine” denial of the deliberative process privilege. But that case applied a balancing test and cited the “district court’s warranted conclusion that [the agency] acted in bad faith over a lengthy period of time.” Id. The cases cited by Texaco applied similar scrutiny rather than rejecting the privilege as a matter of routine. See In re Franklin Nat’l Bank Secs. Litig., 478 F.Supp. 577, 582 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), and Bank of Dearborn v. Saxon, 244 F. Supp. 394, 402-03 (E.D. Mich. 1965), aff'd on other grounds, 377 F.2d 496 (6th Cir. 1967). DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 17 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 27 Other courts have likewise declined to follow In re Subpoena’s approach, even where bad intent or misconduct is alleged. In Jones v. Hernandez, as Plaintiffs explain, the court noted that the privilege may be pierced if “there is reason to believe” government misconduct is at issue. See Dkt. 152 at 4 (citing Jones v. Hernandez, No. 16-CV-1986-W (WVG), 2017 WL 3020930, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2017)). But unlike In re Subpoena, Jones does not automatically bar deliberative process protection upon allegations of bad intent or misconduct in agency deliberations. Rather, Jones merely acknowledges there are “certain circumstances” that “may” warrant denial of deliberative process protection. Id. Significantly, despite allegations of retaliatory agency decision-making, the Jones court ultimately reviewed the subject emails in camera, weighed the need for the information against the interest in non-disclosure, and found the privilege shielded the material. Id. at *3-6. Similarly, in Thomas v. Cate, also cited by Plaintiffs, see Dkt. 152 at 4, the court opted against application of In re Subpoena’s automatic bar to the deliberative process privilege where misconduct is alleged, and conducted a balancing test despite allegations of misconduct in the government’s decision-making process. Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1024 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Once a litigant makes a prima facie showing sufficient to call the decision-making process into issue, the litigant may be entitled to discovery of information that reveals the deliberative and mental processes of the administrative actor, subject to the balance of interests between the parties.”). While the Ninth Circuit has not, to Defendants’ knowledge, ever ruled on the applicability of In re Subpoena, its decision in Warner, which requires a four-part balancing test, is directly inconsistent with the approach taken in In Re Subpoena. And as we have explained, the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court have held that an even higher threshold should apply when the goal is to look behind the stated reasons for an agency decision based on allegations of bad faith. Consequently, considering the national security and investigatory interests at stake here, this Court should reject an automatic bar to deliberative process protection based on the inclusion of certain purportedly talismanic words in a complaint. Instead, this Court should apply 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 17 1 2 the Warner approach, which calls for a more nuanced balancing of an articulated need for the documents against the government’s non-disclosure interests. Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161. 3 4 2. The Warner balancing approach favors application of the deliberative process privilege 5 As we explained before, under basic administrative law principles, a “strong showing of 6 bad faith or improper behavior” is required before it would be appropriate to probe the intent of 7 decisionmakers. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 420 (1971). But even applying 8 the Warner balancing approach, which weighs Plaintiffs’ need for the privileged material against 9 the government’s interest in non-disclosure, the factors counsel against disclosure. See Warner, 10 742 F.2d at 1161. 11 The first factor to consider is the relevance of the documents sought. Plaintiffs argue that 12 “records describing Defendants’ deliberations would shed light on whether discriminatory 13 animus motivated their enactment of CARRP and any successor ‘extreme vetting’ programs.” 14 Dkt. 152 at 8. But Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the relevance of the deliberative process- 15 privileged material Defendants have withheld to date because, as noted above, the Plaintiffs do 16 not allege discriminatory intent in the CARRP-related counts of the SAC. 10 17 The second and third factors are the availability of other evidence and the government’s 18 role in the litigation. Defendants acknowledge they possess the bulk of CARRP documents. 11 19 And, because USCIS created CARRP, the government’s role in this litigation is significant, yet, 20 Plaintiffs do not demonstrate bad intent or misconduct by Defendants as to the CARRP policy. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 As to assertions of privilege specific to documents within “named Plaintiffs’ A-files,” see Dkt. 152 at 2, two additional relevance arguments tip the balance strongly in favor of preserving the privilege. Plaintiffs claim their case is a global challenge to the lawfulness of CARRP and any successor program. Dkt. 58 (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss) at 24 (“Plaintiffs, however, ‘do not seek damages for specific acts of discrimination against themselves,’ but rather ask only that the Court review the legality of CARRP against requirements dictated by Congress in the INA.”). The Court has adopted this global approach, minimizing the importance in this litigation of discrete facts specific to individual class members’ applications. E.g., Dkt. 69 (Order) at 27 (“The common question here is whether CARRP is lawful. The answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The answer to this question will not change based on facts particular to each class member, because each class member’s application was (or will be) subjected to CARRP.”). In light of the broad, nationwide challenge Plaintiffs mount through their global focus on CARRP’s lawfulness, documents addressing facts particular to an individual class member are of marginal importance under Rule 26 because such documents are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ global-oriented approach described above. 11 It is important to note, however, that Plaintiffs have obtained a significant amount of material through the FOIA process and other litigation. See Dkt. 47 at ¶ 59. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 9 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The fourth factor to consider is the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions. Of the four Warner factors, the Ninth Circuit has held this fourth factor the most significant, and it weighs overwhelmingly against disclosure of the documents at issue here. See National Wildlife Fed’n., 861 F.2d at 1117. 12 Plaintiffs facially challenge, on various statutory and constitutional grounds, the legality of USCIS’s procedures for handling the adjudication of immigration benefit applications where there exits an articulable link between the applicant and a national securityrelated inadmissibility ground. The Plaintiffs’ allegations about the illegality of CARRP do not depend upon internal deliberations at USCIS or DHS concerning either the development of the policy or its application in individual cases. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 On the other hand, piercing the privilege for the documents at issue here, would directly harm national security by revealing predecisional, deliberative advice, opinions, and recommendations concerning important questions of policy affecting national security and the proper application of the nation’s immigration laws. See Aff. of Matthew D. Emrich (“Emrich Aff.”) at ¶ 6 (attached hereto as Ex. 2). The range of material is vast and includes, among other things, reports, revisions to procedures, advisory panel materials, emails, and policy guidance. Id. at ¶¶ 8-92. Disclosure of such material risks chilling future internal policy discussions that require free and frank communication within the government. Id. at ¶ 6. Such direct harm to the core government responsibility to protect its citizens should carry overwhelming weight. 13 20 21 22 23 24 If, however, after requiring Plaintiffs to show a need for specific documents, rather than allowing them to mount a global challenge regarding the privilege as applied to all documents, the Court has any doubt about the application of the deliberative process privilege here, the Court can, and should, review the documents in camera before piercing the privilege. Doing so will allow it to make an accurate finding of whether the material warrants protection, and whether the 25 26 27 28 12 Plaintiffs also cite to “other factors” not identified in Warner but suggested by a by a district court in N. Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Each of these additional factors either favors the protection of the government’s national security information or effectively “double counts” arguments articulated in one or more of Warner’s four factors. The Court therefore should ignore Pacifica’s “other factors.” 13 Plaintiffs argue the stipulated protective order provides adequate protection against disclosure. Dkt. 152 at 8. The protective order, however, lacks even an “attorneys’ eyes only” provision and does not offer sufficient protection for the national security and investigatory information revealed in the deliberations at issue. See Ex. 2 at ¶ 7. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO Civil Division COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 10 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 material would, in fact, reveal information relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. See National Wildlife Federation, 861 F.2d at 1116, 1123 (reviewing material in camera and finding it deliberative process privileged); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of State, 235 F. Supp. 3d 310, 314 (D.D.C. 2017) (reviewing material in camera and, despite allegations of government misconduct, finding it deliberative process privileged); Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 19 F. Supp. 3d 1, 21 (D.D.C. 2013) (same). If the predecisional, deliberative material involved here does not reveal discriminatory intent or bad faith, then the balance would clearly weigh in favor of upholding the privilege. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In sum, the very existence of the balancing approach demonstrates that litigation of matters such as this is not such a zero-sum game. Upon conducting that balancing, the Court should conclude that the government’s interest in non-disclosure far outweighs Plaintiffs need for the privileged, deliberative, predecisional material at issue. Finally, if the Court were not able to conclude that the balance weighs in favor of applying the privilege without reviewing the material at issue, then the Court should review of the documents ex parte in order to properly weigh the federal interests in non-disclosure against Plaintiffs’ purported need for the information. The Court previously has recognized the possibility of undertaking such review. See Feb. 14, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 11:18-19. C. 19 Defendants Have Complied with the Procedure for Asserting the Deliberative Process Privilege 20 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants waived the deliberative process privilege by not 21 providing declaratory support at the time of production. Defendants acknowledge this Court’s 22 April 11 ruling addressing a similar issue with respect to the law enforcement privilege. The 23 productions here predated that ruling. Further, we submit that ruling is in error and will result in 24 a significant reduction in the ability to produce documents in the timeframes expected by the 25 Court and the Plaintiffs – as the agency declarant will now be a bottleneck before any production 26 can be made. This will soon become a very substantial bottleneck, as, to address Plaintiff’s 27 significant document discovery requests, Defendants have onboarded 10 full time contract 28 reviewers, and another 10 contract reviewers are slated to begin reviewing documents at a later DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 date. In addition, USCIS is adding 50-60 employees to spend part of their time conducting document review for this case. That large number of reviewers will, we hope, help address the concerns by the Court and the Plaintiffs regarding the speed of production – but that will not work under this Court’s April 11 order, which will require a single official – the agency head – to review every document that includes a privilege assertion before productions can be made. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 In any event, it is well established that the submission of a supporting declaration is appropriate when responding to a motion to compel. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“motion to compel was the first event which could have forced disclosure of the documents,” and agency had no “obligation to formally invoke its privileges in advance of the motion to compel.”); see also Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 726, 727 (2006); Abramson v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 290, 294 n.3 (1997). Defendants are filing with this brief the affidavit of Matthew D. Emrich, see Ex. 2, formally invoking the deliberative process privilege. Defendants initially withheld this information on a claim that it was privileged, and identified to Plaintiffs via privilege logs a description of the material withheld and the basis on which it was withheld. Once challenged on those claims by the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Defendants have now formally asserted the privilege. Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary lacks merit. As to the specificity of privilege log descriptions accompanying Defendants’ document production, Plaintiffs similarly miss the mark by again relying on this Court’s previous order on the sufficiency of Defendants’ law enforcement assertion. See Dkt. 152 at 12 (citing Dkt. 148 at 4). Defendants contend their privilege log entries adequately balance specificity against disclosure concerns and this Court has not yet ruled on the sufficiency of Defendants’ privilege log descriptions with respect to the deliberative process privilege. 24 CONCLUSION 25 26 27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Regarding the Deliberative Process Privilege. 28 Dated: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ANNETTE L. HAYES United States Attorney CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General BRIAN C. KIPNIS Assistant United States Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington 5220 United States Courthouse 700 Stewart Street Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Telephone: (206) 553-7970 e-mail: brian.kipnis@usdoj.gov /s/ August Flentje AUGUST FLENTJE Special Counsel Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3309 E-mail: august.flentje@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 17 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 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 30, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participants: Harry H. Schneider, Jr., Esq. Nicholas P. Gellert, Esq. David A. Perez, Esq. Kathryn Reddy, Esq. Laura Kaplan Hennessey, Esq. Perkins Coie L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Ste. 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PH: 359-8000 FX: 359-9000 E-mail: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com E-mail: NGellert@perkinscoie.com E-mail: DPerez@perkinscoie.com E-mail: KReddy@perkinscoie.com E-mail: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com 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 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 Jennifer Pasquarella, Esq. Sameer Ahmed, Esq. ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 17 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 27 28 Facsimile: (213) 997-5297 E-mail: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org 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 Hugh Handeyside, Esq. Coor Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 E-mail: hhandeyside@aclu.org 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: hshamsi@aclu.org Trina Realmuto, Esq. Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq. American Immigration Council 100 Summer St., 23rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 305-3600 E-mail: trealmuto@immcounsel.org E-mail: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org 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 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 17 1 2 3 4 s/August E. Flentje August E. Flentje U.S. Department of Justice 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) - 16 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3309 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-1 Filed 04/30/18 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., Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 DONALD TRUMP, President of the 14 United States, et al., 15 No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ DECLARATION OF JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. Defendants. 16 I, Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., counsel for Respondents hereby declare and state the following: 17 1. I am a member of the State Bar of New Hampshire. I am employed as a Trial 18 Attorney at U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, District 19 Court Section. I have personal knowledge of the events described therein, and could testify to 20 them if called to do so. 21 2. I represent Defendants in the above captioned case. 22 3. Defendants have produced documents on the following dates: 23 a. 24 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Oct. 5, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit A); 25 b. 26 F. Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Oct. 30, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit B); 27 c. 28 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Nov. 22, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit C); October 5, 2017. Defendant USCIS 001. See Letter from Joseph F. October 30, 2017. Defendant USCIS 002 and 003. See Letter from Joseph November 22, 2107. Defendant USCIS 004. See Letter from Joseph F. DECLARAT ION OF JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. - 1 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 4 1 d. 2 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Feb. 12, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit D); 3 e. 4 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Feb. 28, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit E). 5 f. 6 F. Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Mar. 16, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit F). 7 g. 8 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Mar. 30, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit G); 9 and February 12, 2018. Defendant USCIS 005. See Letter from Joseph F. February 28, 2018. Defendant USCIS 006. See Letter from Joseph F. March 16, 2018. Defendant USCIS 007 and 008. See Letter from Joseph March 30, 2018. Defendant USCIS 009. See Letter from Joseph F. 10 h. 11 Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Apr. 13, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit H). 12 13 4. April 13, 2018. Defendant USCIS 010. See Letter from Joseph F. Carilli, Subsequent to the production of Defendant USCIS 001 through 008, Defendants produced a privilege log on the following dates: 14 a. 15 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Oct. 30, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit I); 16 b. 17 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Nov. 6, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit J); 18 c. November 6, 2017. Defendant USCIS 003; 19 d. November 28, 2017. Defendant USCIS Volume 004. See E-mail from 20 Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Nov. 28, 2017) (attached hereto as 21 Exhibit K); 22 e. 23 Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Mar. 6, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit L); 24 f. 25 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Mar. 16, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit M); 26 g. 27 Carilli, Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Mar. 20, 2018) (attached hereto as Exhibit N); 28 and, October 30, 2017. Defendant USCIS 001. See Email from Joseph F. November 3, 2017. Defendant USCIS 002. See E-mail from Joseph F. March 6, 2018. Defendant USCIS 005. See E-mail from Joseph F. Carilli, March 16, 2018. Defendant USCIS 006. See E-mail from Joseph F. March 20, 2018. Defendant USCIS 008. See E-mail from Joseph F. DECLARAT ION OF JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. - 2 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 4 1 h. 2 Jr. to Plaintiffs’ counsel (Nov. 28, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit O). April 6, 2018. Defendant USCIS 007. See E-mail from Joseph F. Carilli, 3 Defendants have not produced a privilege log for Production Volumes Defendant USCIS 009 4 and 010. 5 5. On March 7, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants met and conferred about 6 Defendants’ claim of the deliberative process privilege. Defendants requested that Plaintiffs 7 identify specific documents at issue. Plaintiffs did not identify any specific documents. 8 9 6. The document database used for the review and production of documents indicates the following: 10 a. 11 documents; 12 b. 13 privilege over 716 documents; 14 c. 15 the search and collection of documents potentially responsive to Plaintiffs’ 16 Request for Production Number 23 and 24 and Plaintiffs’ Second Request for 17 Production to Defendants; 18 d. 19 privilege over 75 documents; and, 20 e. 21 Immigration Services actions under Section 4 of Executive Order 13769 and 22 Section 4 and 5 Executive Order 13780: (1) 45 documents relate to expanded 23 interviews and expanded interview training and (2) 25 documents relate to 24 continuous immigration vetting. The remaining 5 documents relate to the 25 Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program. Production Volumes Defendant USCIS 001 through 008 total 2,456 Of the 2,456 documents, Defendants have claimed the deliberative process Of the 2,456 documents, Defendants have produced 459 documents from Of the 459 documents, Defendants have claimed the deliberative process Of the 75 documents, 70 documents relate to U.S. Citizenship and 26 27 28 DECLARAT ION OF JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. - 3 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 4 1 Dated: April 30, 2018 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. E-mail: joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov N.H. Bar Identification No. 15311 Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-4848 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARAT ION OF JOSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. - 4 (2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 36 th'tA Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 36 US. Department of Justice Civil Division Office oflmmigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 616-9l3l Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 October 5. 2017 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4900 Seattle. WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (J Pasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern Califomia 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 Re: Wugq/e. et (11.. v. Trump. et al.. No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 001) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USC IS 001, Bates number DEF -00000001 through DEF-00001446. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with this production volume will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. 8' rely, SEPH F. CARILL rial Attorney EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 36 Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 36 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Of?ce oflmmigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 616-9131 PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 October 27. 2017 Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (J Pasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 Re: Wagofe. et al.. v. Trump. et al.. No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 002. 003) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USC IS 002, Bates number DEF-00001600 through DEF-00002652. and Production Volume Defendant USC IS 003. Bates number DEF-00002653 through DEF-00004536. A password will be sent to you via e-mail message. The privilege log associated with these production volumes will be sent via separate correspondence. Bates number DEF-00001447 through DEF-00001599 will not be utilized. Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002 are documents associated with a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program independent study course. During processing of this Adobe Dreamweaver file. the embedded content was extracted. This content was then uploaded to our review platform in its respective parts. All associated content with this Adobe Dreamweaver ?le is included in Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002. Please let me know if you have any questions. Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 36 Wagq/?. e! (11.. Trump. 6! al.. No. (W.D. Wash.) Sincerely. gm. or? WARD S. WHI Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY JOSEPH F. CARILLI. JR. Trial Attorneys National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 36 EthC Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 36 US. Department of Justice Civil Division Office oflmmigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 616-9131 PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 Novemer 22. 2017 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4900 Seattle. WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (JPasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 Re: Wagq/?. et al.. v. Trump. et (11.. N0. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004. Bates number DEF -00004537 through DEF-00004962. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with this production volume will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Si erely, SEPH F. CARJLLI. JR. rial Attorney EDWARD 8. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY Trial Attomey National Security Affirmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 36 Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 36 US. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 6 6-9l3l PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 February 12, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (JPasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Wagafe. et al.. v. Trump, et (11., No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 005) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 005, Bates number DEF-00004963 through DEF -0000569l. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with this production volume will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. Si cerely, .l SEPH F.CARIL .JR. Trial Attorney EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 36 13111th Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 36 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Of?ce o/?lmmigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 6l6-9l3l PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 February 28. 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4900 Seattle. WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (JPasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 Re: Wager/?. et al., v. Trump. et (11.. No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 006) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 006. Bates number DEF-00005692 through DEF -0001 0830. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with this production volume will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. SEPH F. CARILLI. rialAttomey EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security &.Aff1rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 36 Ehh'tF Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 36 US. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 616-9l3l PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 March 16. 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue. Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (JPasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Wagqfe. et al.. v. Trump, et al., No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 007. 008) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007. Bates number DEF -0001 0831 through DEF-00016330, and Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008, Bates number DEF-00016331 through DEF-00017065. A password will be sent to you via e-mail message. The privilege log associated with these production volumes will be sent via separate correspondence. Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 is the electronic mail messages, which had attachments, previously produced in Production Volume Defendant USC IS 005 and 006 with their attachments. Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 36 Wagq/?. er al.. v. Trump. e1 (11., No. (W.D. Wash.) Please let me know if you have any questions. 5' 72" 007 SEPH F. CARILL . JR. rial Attorney EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 36 13111th Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 36 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Of?ce of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 6 6-9l3l PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 March 30, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (J Pasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@aclusocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Wagqfe. et al., v. Trump, et al.. No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USCIS 009) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USC IS 009, Bates number DEF-00017066 through DEF-00018222. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with these production volumes will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. 'ncerely, 7c- C07 OSEPH F. CARILLI, JR. Trial Attorney EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 36 Ehh'tH Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 18 of 36 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Direct Dial: (202) 6l6-9l3l PO. Box 868 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 Ben Franklin Station Washington. DC 20044-0868 April 13, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mr. Nicholas P. Gellert (NGellert@perkinscoie.com) Mr. David A. Perez (DPerez@perkinscoie.com) Ms. Laura K. Hennessey (LHennessey@perkinscoie.com) Perkins 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Ms. Jennifer Pasquarella (J Pasquarella@aclusocal.org) Mr. Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ac1usocal.org) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles. CA 90017 Re: Wager/?. et al.. v. Trump. et al., No. (W.D. Wash.) Document Production (Production Volume Defendant USC IS 010) Dear Counsel: Please see enclosed document production for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 010, Bates number DEF-00018223 through DEF-00018848. A password will be sent to you via e- mail message. The privilege log associated with these production volumes will be sent via separate correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions. if; <7 SEPH F. CARILLI. rial Attorney EDWARD S. WHITE Senior Litigation Counsel CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS AARON R. PETTY Trial Attorney National Security Af?rmative Litigation Unit Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 19 of 36 th? Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 20 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV) Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 001 Privilege Log Monday, October 30, 2017 5:04:59 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 001).xlsx Counsel, Good afternoon. Please see attached. Please have a nice evening. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:LHennessey@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 1:21 PM To: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 001 Thank you, Joe. Laura Laura Kaplan Hennessey Perkins Coie LLP D. +1.206.359.3592 E. LHennessey@perkinscoie.com From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) [mailto:Joseph.F.Carilli2@usdoj.gov] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 3:43 AM To: Gellert, Nicholas (SEA); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (SEA); Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 001 Counsel, Good morning. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 001 has been sent to your offices via FedEx on October 5, 2017. The tracking numbers are 770428714759 (Perkins Coie) and 770428756310 (ACLU). The password is Prodvol01!. Please have a nice weekend. Regards, Joseph Carilli Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 21 of 36 NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 22 of 36 EthJ Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 23 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 003 Privilege Log Monday, November 06, 2017 1:26:41 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 003).pdf Ms. Hennessey, Good morning. Please see attached. Please have a nice afternoon. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:LHennessey@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 12:47 PM To: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002 Privilege Log Joseph, Thank you for sending along this privilege log for Production Volume 2. When can we expect a privilege log for Production Volume 3? Best, Laura Laura Kaplan Hennessey Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 D. +1.206.359.3592 F. +1.206.359.4592 E. LHennessey@perkinscoie.com From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) [mailto:Joseph.F.Carilli2@usdoj.gov] Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:11 AM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA) ; Gellert, Nicholas (SEA) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (SEA) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 24 of 36 002 Privilege Log Counsel, Good morning. Please see attached. Please have a nice weekend. Regards, Joe From: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:LHennessey@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 11:51 AM To: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002, 003 Thanks, Joseph. Laura Kaplan Hennessey Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 D. +1.206.359.3592 F. +1.206.359.4592 E. LHennessey@perkinscoie.com From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) [mailto:Joseph.F.Carilli2@usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 2:07 AM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA) ; Gellert, Nicholas (SEA) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (SEA) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Re: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002, 003 Ms. Hennessey, Good morning. The issue was related to incorrect addresses The shipping label had the to and from addresses transposed. Regards, Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 25 of 36 Joseph Carilli Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------From: "Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie)" Date: 10/31/17 1:08 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV)" , "Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie)" , "Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG)" , "Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie)" , "Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG)" Cc: "Petty, Aaron (CIV)" , "White, Edward S. (CIV)" Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002, 003 Joseph, Could you clarify—was the issue related to the content of the production or was the first version simply sent to incorrect addresses? Thanks, Laura Laura Kaplan Hennessey Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 D. +1.206.359.3592 F. +1.206.359.4592 E. LHennessey@perkinscoie.com From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) [mailto:Joseph.F.Carilli2@usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 3:14 PM To: Gellert, Nicholas (SEA) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (SEA) ; Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002, 003 Counsel, Please accept my apologies. The aforementioned production volumes are being re-sent to you this evening. Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 26 of 36 The tracking numbers are 770625604854 (Perkins Coie) and 770625613701 (ACLU). Please have a nice evening. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 4:35 PM To: Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002, 003 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002 and 003 has been sent to your offices via FedEx today, October 27, 2017. The tracking numbers are 8116 6805 6830 (Perkins Coie) and 8116 6805 6829 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 002 is Prodvol02@. password for Production Volume Defendant 003 is Prodvol03#. The Please have a nice weekend. Regards, Joseph Carilli NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 27 of 36 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 28 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004 Privilege Log Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:13:33 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 004).pdf Counsel, Good morning. Please see attached. Please have a nice afternoon. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:40 AM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004 has been sent to your offices via FedEx today, November 22, 2017. The tracking numbers are 7708 1338 3881 (Perkins Coie) and 7708 1339 7075 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 004 is Prodvol04!. Please have a nice holiday. Regards, Joseph Carilli Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4848 joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 29 of 36 13111th Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 30 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 005 [Privilege Log] Tuesday, March 06, 2018 5:34:27 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 005).pdf Counsel, Good afternoon. Please see attached. Please have a nice evening. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 6:21 PM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 005 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 005 has been sent to your offices via FedEx today, February 12, 2018. The tracking numbers are 7714 6482 5503 (Perkins Coie) and 7714 6483 3979 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 005 is Prodvol05%. Regards, Joseph Carilli Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4848 joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 31 of 36 13301th Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 32 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV); Hollis, Christopher (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 006 Privilege Log Friday, March 16, 2018 4:57:25 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 006)(A-Files).pdf Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 006).pdf Counsel, Please see attached. Please have a nice weekend. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:57 PM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 006 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 006 has been sent to your offices via FedEx today, February 28, 2018. The tracking numbers are 7716 4902 0376 (Perkins Coie) and 7716 4904 3403 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 006 is Prodvol06^. Regards, Joseph Carilli Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4848 joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 33 of 36 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 34 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV); Hollis, Christopher (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 Privilege Log Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:54:26 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 008).pdf Counsel, Good morning. Please see attached. Please have a nice afternoon. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 4:56 PM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) ; Hollis, Christopher (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007, 008 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007 and Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 will be sent to your offices via FedEx today, March 16, 2018. The tracking numbers are 7801 1905 2303 (Perkins Coie) and 7801 1909 1296 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007 is Prodvol07& and for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 is Prodvol08*. Regards, Joseph Carilli Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4848 joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov Case Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 35 of 36 BthO Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 174-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 36 of 36 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie); Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie); Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Petty, Aaron (CIV); White, Edward S. (CIV); Hollis, Christopher (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007 Privilege Log Friday, April 06, 2018 3:54:50 PM Privilege Log (Prod Vol Def USCIS 007).xlsx Counsel, Good afternoon. Please see attached. Please have a nice weekend. Regards, Joseph Carilli From: Carilli, Joseph F. (CIV) Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 4:56 PM To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) ; Jennie Pasquarella (JPasquarella@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) Cc: Petty, Aaron (CIV) ; White, Edward S. (CIV) ; Hollis, Christopher (CIV) Subject: Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-00094 (W.D. Wash.) - Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007, 008 Counsel, Good afternoon. A copy of Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007 and Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 will be sent to your offices via FedEx today, March 16, 2018. The tracking numbers are 7801 1905 2303 (Perkins Coie) and 7801 1909 1296 (ACLU). The password for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 007 is Prodvol07& and for Production Volume Defendant USCIS 008 is Prodvol08*. Regards, Joseph Carilli Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4848 joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 23 The Honorable Richard A. JoneJi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, el al., No. P'a'm'ffs? AFFIDAVIT 0F MATTHEW D. v. EMRICH IN SUPPORT OF ASSERTION OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND DELIBERATIVE PROCESS IMMIGRATION SERVICES, e! Defendants. l, Matthew D. Emrich, do hereby declare and say: I. I am the Associate Director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, US Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security. As the leader of DNS, I report directly to the Director, USCIS and Deputy Director, USCIS. 2. L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS, has delegated to me the authority to assert the deliberative process privilege on his behalf regarding the documents at issue in this litigation. 3. As the FDNS Associate Director, I am responsible for overseeing all policy, planning, management, and execution functions for DNS. mission is to enhance the integrity of the legal immigration system by leading efforts to identify threats to national security and public safety, detect and combat immigration bene?t fraud, and remove systemic and other vulnerabilities. have held this position since November I5, 2015. AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. - I (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 23 4. Under my supervision, FDNS leads efforts to determine whether individuals or organizations ?ling for immigration benefits pose a threat to national security, public safety, or the integrity of the nation?s immigration system. As part of its duties, FDNS establishes guidance and oversees the process for identifying, reviewing, and vetting immigration bene?t applications, petitions, and requests (?applications?) that involve national security concerns. FDNS personnel work closely with USCIS adjudicators to resolve such cases and to provide adjudicators with suf?cient information for the adjudicators to determine whether an applicant, petitioner, or requestor (?applicant?) is eligible for the benefit sought. To ful?ll its mission, FDNS collaborates with counterparts across USCIS, DHS, and the broader US. government. FDNS also serves as the agency?s conduit for sharing information with law enforcement and intelligence community partners. 5. I submit this declaration in order to assert the deliberative process privilege over documents previously withheld or redacted on that basis. 6. Public disclosure of the withheld portions of these documents would jeopardize ability to engage in decision making by discouraging future candid discussion and debate within USCIS. USCIS personnel would be reluctant to share their opinions for or against a particular decision if those predecisional comments were subject to disclosure, and to ?Jture use for the purpose of challenging the ?nal decision and/or the process by which it was achieved. It is reasonable to expect that, if the court elects to make these deliberations and discussion public, it will in?uence the future actions of USCIS personnel, to the detriment of the decision making process, and the ability to make well informed decisions at USCIS. 7. I am aware that in this litigation the parties have entered into a Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 85, and have reviewed the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order. The existence of the protective order does not change my assessment of the importance of shielding these internal predecisional agency deliberations from disclosure. Even disclosure under a protective order would not mitigate the chilling effect and detrimental consequences that would result from these documents being disclosed for purposes of this litigation. AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. - 2 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ) ON NM WM Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 23 8. The Afile documents withheld in this case on the basis of the deliberative process privilege are documents prepared by USCIS personnel to assist in the adjudication of applications for immigration bene?ts. In this case that includes naturalization applications, and applications to adjust status. The documents include worksheets, notes, emails, other such documents reflecting the efforts of USCIS personnel to assess eligibility for these benefits in advance of reaching a decision. They reflect the thoughts, opinions, suggestions, and recommendations of the dra?er, as well as efforts to resolve question with supervisors and colleagues, rather than agency policy. These documents are predecisional because they were created before a ?nal decision was rendered and in furtherance of reaching that decision, and they are deliberative because their purpose is to assist in evaluating eligibility. 9. 1 am asserting the deliberative process privilege over the following pages from the Manzoor Afile, DEF-0000: 5774; 5777; 5778; 5779; 5796 to 5799; 5819 to 5820; 5886; 5906; 5963; 6004; 6024; 6074; 6261; 6262; 6267 to 6273; 6274 to 6277; 6278 to 6280; 6281 to 6282; 6292 to 6293; 6295; 6313 to 6314; 6315; 6316 to 3617; 6323; 6324 to 6326; 6327 to 6332; 6333; 6334 to 6336; 6337; 6338; 6339 to 6343; 6349; 6350 to 6351. 10. I am asserting the deliberative process privilege over the following pages from the Wagafe A?le, DEF-0000: 6572; 6580; 6585; 6590; 6591; 6592; 6593 to 6597; 6598 to 6599; 6605 to 6606; 6607; 6673; 6676 to 6677; 6710. 11. I am asserting the deliberative process privilege over the following pages from the Jihad A?le, DEF-0000: 7674; 7676; 7688 to 7689; 7691; 7733 to 7736; 7738; 7739; 7740; 7741 to 7743; 7780 to 7782; 7783; 7785 to 7786; 7787 to 7805; 7819 to 7821; 7822; 7823 to 7825; 7828 to 7829; 7858 to 7859; 7860; 7870 to 7871. 12. I am asserting the deliberative process privilege over the following pages from the Bengezi Afile, DEF-0000: 6936 to 6953; 7311; 7312; 7321; 7322 to 7323; 7346 to 7348; 7349 to 7351; 7352; 7353; 7354 to 7356; 7357 to 7358; 7367 to 7369; 7371 to 7381; 7382 to 7383; 7385; 7393; 7404 to 7405; 7440 to 7446. 13. I am asserting the deliberative process privilege over the following pages from the Ostadhassan Afile, 8470 to 8471; 8472 to 8473: 8474; 8475; 8476; 8480; 8483; AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW - 3 (2: I ?Nam-RWN?oom?oUIth??o Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 23 8484; 8485; 8488 to 8495; 8507 to 8508; 8510; 8511 to 8514; 8516; 8517 to 8519; 8521; 8522 to 8523; 8524 to 8525; 8526 to 8532; 8534; 8550 to 8551; 8563 to 8568; 8593; 8594 to 8595. 14. In addition, my review of the other documents identi?ed herein, which were withheld in this case on the basis of the deliberative process privilege, demonstrated that they are predecisional and deliberative documents. As further described below, the nature of the documents over which I am declaring the deliberative process privilege includes documents re?ecting deliberation about policies and procedures being considered for development or revision. They also re?ect deliberations about how to apply, implement, or teach personnel about USCIS policies and procedures. Further, the re?ect management decision making processes and the exchange of guidance, advice, and direction. They are documents, emails, notes, and other documents in dra? and other forms, re?ecting the candid and collaborative exchange of comments and information re?ecting the types of discussions and decision making processes that are necessary to the functioning of an agency like USCIS. 15. The following are predecisional, deliberative documents relate to the drafting, review, and editing of the policy memorandum on instituting ?Just in Time? background and security checks immediately before granting naturalization or lawful permanent resident status. The documents below include intra agency emails and comments and draft policy memoranda, re?ecting the process of review and deliberation that occurred in advance of the ?nalization of the policy memorandum. DEF-00016317 to DEF-0001 1139 to DEF-0001 1140; DEF-0001 1161 to DEF-00011166 to DEF- 00011167; DEF-00011435 to DEF-0001 1436; DEF-0001 1584 to DEF-0001 1588; DEF- 0001 1599 to DEF-00011569 to DEF-0001 1394 to DEF- 00011396; DEF-00011397 to 1399; DEF-0001 1410 to DEF- 00011414 to DEF-00011417 to DEF-0001 1419; DEF-00011420 to DEF- 0001 1421; DEF-0001 1422 to DEF-0001 1423; DEF-0001 1426 to DEF- 00011430 to DEF-0001 1440 to DEF-0001 1441; DEF-0001 1444 to DEF- 0001 1445; DEF-00011448 to DEF-0001 1450 to DEF- 0001 1452 to DEF-0001 1455; DEF-0001 1456 to DEF-0001 1459; DEF-0001 1614 to DEF- AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. - 4 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ) Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 23 0001 1618; DEF-0001 1629 to DEF-00011554 to 1558; DEF- 0001 1400 to DEF-00011432 to DEF-00011559 to DEF- 00011562; DEF-0001 1574 to DEF-0001 1577; DEF-00011589 to DEF- 0001 1604 to DEF-00011619 to DEF-0001 1622; DEF-00011634 to DEF- 0001 1637; DEF-00016319 to DEF-00011 138; DEF-0001 1143; DEF-0001 1 165; DEF-0001 170; DEF-0001 1439; DEF-0001 1463; DEF-00010891 16. The following documents re?ect predecisional USCIS policy deliberation in the context of a CARRP related working group tasked with review, discussion, debate, revision, and development of agency CARRP policy and procedure. The documents below include emails, working aids, notes, memoranda, agenda containing directions and comments, as well as draft documents submitted to or by participants in the working group. The revision of CARRP that was the subject of this working group was never implemented. DEF-00000104 to DEF- 00000107; DEF-00000100 to DEF-00000108 to DEF-000001 15; DEF- 00000116 to DEF-00000124 to DEF-00000132 to DEF- 00000139; DEF-00000140 to DEF-00000148 to DEF- 00000156 to DEF-00000164 to DEF-00000179 to DEF- 00000185; DEF-00000172 to DEF-00000187 to DEF- 00000491to DEF-00001069 to DEF- 00000497; DEF- 00000508; DEF-0000051 1; DEF- 00000519; DEF-0000021 1 to DEF-00000213 to DEF-00000216 to DEF- 00000217; DEF-00000218 to DEF-00000221 to DEF- 00000223 to DEF-00000225 to DEF-00000227 to DEF- 00000228; DEF-00000229 to to DEF- 00000234 DEF-00000236 to DEF-00000238 to DEF- AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. - 5 (2:1 Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 23 00000240; DEF-00000244 to DEF-00000247 to DEF- 00000249 to DEF-00000251 to DEF-00000253 to DEF- 00000254; DEF-00000255 to DEF-00000257 to DEF- 00000259 to DEF-00000262 to DEF-00000266 to DEF- 00000268; DEF-00000269 to DEF-00000272 to DEF- 00000274 to DEF-00005528 to DEF- 00005506 to DEF-00005510 to DEF-00010750 to 00010750; DEF-00002876 to 17. USCIS policy and procedure is memorialized in, among other things, policy memoranda and guidance. The documents below re?ect the process of efforts to generate, review, and/or revise policy and procedure in the form of draft policy memoranda and/or draft policy manual content relating to CARRP and to the handling of cases for which there may be national security concerns. DEF-00002951 to 00010902; DEF-0001 1090; DEF-0001 1092; DEF-0001 1 100; DEF-00011 102; DEF-0001 1103; 1109; DEF-00011 1 17; DEF- 00011 123; DEF-00011 124; DEF-00011 158; DEF-0001 1174; DEF-0001 1217; DEF-0001 1223; DEF-0001 DEF- 0001 1225; DEF-0001 1226; DEF-0001 1230; DEF-0001 1231; DEF-0001 1232; DEF-0001 DEF-0001 1238; DEF- 00011247; DEF-0001 1250; DEF-0001 1256; DEF-0001 1283; DEF-0001 1284; DEF- 0001 1287; DEF-0001 1332; DEF-0001 1359; 00011364; DEF-0001 1365; DEF-0001 1368; 1369; DEF-0001 1392; DEF- 0001 1126 to DEF-00011 131; DEF- 0001 113210 DEF-00011 133; DEF-0001 1259 to DEF-0001 1265 to DEF- 00011266; DEF-00011294 to DEF-0001 1311; DEF-00011314 to DEF-0001 1331; DEF- AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. - 6 (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 23 0001 1334 to DEF-0001 1352; DEF-00011228 to DEF-00008673 to DEF- 00008690; DEF-0001 1218; DEF-00016584 to DEF-00000486 to DEF-00002880 to DEF- 00005502 to DEF-00000762 to DEF-00000432 to DEF- 00000449; DEF-00002822 to DEF-00000450 to DEF- 00002840 to DEF-00000468 to DEF-00002858 to DEF- 00002875; DEF-00000817 to DEF-00000617 to DEF- 00000629 to DEF-00000648 to DEF-00000714 to DEF- 00000728; DEF-00000667 to DEF-00000866 to DEF- 00000853 to DEF-00000682 to DEF-00000699 to DEF- 00000713; DEF-00000729 to DEF-00000745 to DEF- 00000780 to DEF-00000798 to DEF-00000835 to DEF- 00000852; DEF-00000880 to DEF-00000536 to DEF- 00002889 to DEF-00000596 to DEF-00000898 to DEF- 00000912; DEF-00000913 to DEF-00000930 to DEF- 00000942 to DEF-00000954 to DEF-00002910 to DEF- 00002928; DEF-00002933 to DEF-00000209 to 18. For purposes of reviewing certain cases in which national security concerns have been raised, USCIS established a Senior Leadership Review Board (SLRB) and an associated working group. It was necessary to develop guidance describing the roles and responsibilities of the board and its members, and to establish procedures and processes related to the board?s work. The following documents are predecisional, re?ecting the process of review and deliberation that occurred in the context of developing guidance and procedures for the SLRB, and in advance of the adoption or modi?cation of ?nal guidance for the SLRB. 1086; DEF-0001 1089; DEF-0001 1093; DEF-0001 1097; DEF- 0001 1098; DEF-0001 1104; DEF-00011 105; DEF-0001 1108; DEF-00011 1 10; DEF-0001 1 11 1; DEF-0001 1112; DEF-0001 11 13; DEF-0001 1114; DEF-00011 134; DEF- 0001 1 144; DEF-0001 1148; DEF-00011 149; AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICII - 7 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 23 DEF-0001 1150; DEF-00011 151; DEF-0001 1 153; DEF- 00011 155; DEF-0001 1159; DEF-00011 160; DEF-0001 1171; DEF-0001 1 172; DEF-0001 1173; DEF-0001 1 175; DEF-0001 1 176; DEF-0001 1177; DEF- 00011 195; DEF-0001 1213; 00011471; DEF-0001 1491; DEF-00008643 to DEF-00010508 to DEF-00016542 to DEF- 00016568; DEF-00010744 to DEF-00010768 to DEF- 00010770; DEF-0001 1 180 to DEF-0001 1183; DEF-0001 1 186 to DEF-0001 1188; DEF-00011192 to DEF-0001 1196 to DEF- 00011476 to DEF-0001 1478; DEF-00011481 to DEF-00011488 to DEF- 00011490; DEF-00011492 to DEF-00011502 to DEF- 0001 1506 to DEF-00011509. 19. The following dra? documents are predecisional re?ect efforts to create or revise policy related to use of TECS background checks. DEF-00001272 to DEF- 00001275; DEF-00001276 to DEF-00001280 to DEF- 00001284 to DEF-00001098 to DEF-00001 102; DEF-00001222 to DEF- 00001226; to DEF-00005481 to DEF- 00005491; DEF-00003273 to DEF-00003279 to DEF- 00004045 to DEF-00016587. 20. The following documents re?ect predecisional and deliberative efforts to revise sections of the National Background Identity and Security Operation Procedures The is considered a living document and is updated as the need arises. Evaluation of potential changes to the procedures requires candid discussion and deliberation within the agency. DEF-00003301 to DEF-00005517 to DEF- 00005518; DEF-00003005 to DEF-00011028 to DEF- 00002653 to DEF-00003045 to DEF-00003052 to DEF- 00003053; DEF-00003054 to DEF-00003246 to DEF- OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 8 (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 23 00003248 to DEF-00001 106 to DEF- 00002998 to DEF-00003236 to DEF-0000323 7; DEF- 00003250 to DEF-00003271 to DEF-00001 105; DEF- 00001220 to DEF-00003003 to DEF- 00003009 to DEF-00001 1 to DEF-00001 115; DEF- 00001089 to DEF-00003039 to DEF-00003050 to DEF- 00003051; DEF-00001218 to DEF- 00010965; DEF- 0001 1002; DEF-0001 1005; DEF-0001 1024; DEF-0001 1050; DEF-0001 1051; DEF- 00011083; DEF-0001 1085; DEF-0001 1096; DEF-00011 122; DEF-0001 1242; DEF-0001 1255; DEF-0001 1355; DEF-0001 1391; DEF- 0001 1393; DEF-00009263 to DEF-00009430 to DEF- 00009598 to DEF-00008924 to DEF-00009092 to DEF- 00009254; DEF-00009800 to DEF-00008764 to DEF- 00003064 to DEF-00001229 to DEF-00001230 to DEF- 00001231; DEF-00001 116 to DEF-00001 132; DEF-00003792 to DEF- 00001 103 to DEF-00001 104; DEF-00001206 to DEF-00003303 to DEF- 00003304; DEF-00003308 to DEF-00003315 to DEF- 00003317 to DEF-00003014 to DEF- 00010978 to DEF-0001 1034 to DEF-0001 1049; DEF-00003288 to DEF- 00003290; DEF-00003297 to DEF-0001 1010 to DEF- 00010999 to DEF-0001 1001; DEF-0001 1027; DEF-00010991 to DEF- 00010995; DEF-00010997 to DEF-0001 1060 to DEF- 0001 1062; DEF-0001 1094 to DEF-0001 1095; DEF-0001 1267 to DEF-0001 1268; DEF- 0001 1269 to DEF-0001 1270; DEF-0001 1390; DEF-0001 1057 to DEF-0001 1059; DEF- AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 9 Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 23 00000425 to DEF-00002815 to DEF-00000276 to DEF- 00000302; DEF-00002668 to DEF-00000303 to DEF- 00002695 to DEF-00000554 to DEF-00000330 to DEF- 00000346; DEF-00002722 to DEF-00000373 to DEF- 00002764 to DEF-00000399 to DEF-00002790 to DEF- 00002814; DEF-00000347 to DEF-00002739 to DEF- 00000097; DEF-00000614 to DEF-00002907 to DEF-00002929. 21. The following documents re?ect the predecisional course of USCIS policy deliberation in the context of a advisory panel, tasked with review, discussion, debate, revision, and development of agency operating procedures for background, identity and security checks. 00001 135; to DEF-00001142 to DEF- 00001 146 to DEF-00001 148 to DEF-00001151 to DEF- 00001152; DEF-00001153 to DEF-00001 157 to DEF-00001 159; DEF- 00001 160 to DEF-00001162 to DEF-00001 164 to DEF- 00001166; DEF-00001167 to DEF-00001 170 to DEF- 00001172 to DEF-00001175 to DEF-00001 176; DEF-00001 177 to DEF- 00001 178; DEF-00001179 to DEF-00001 181; DEF-00001 182 to DEF- 00001185 to DEF-00001188 to DEF-00001190 to DEF- 00001191; DEF-00001 192 to DEF-00001 194 to DEF-00001 197; DEF- 00001198 to DEF-00001 199; DEF-00001200 to DEF-00001202 to DEF- 00001203; DEF-00001204 to DEF-00003242 to DEF- 00003244 to DEF-00003245 22. USCIS engages in data exchange and collaboration with other DHS components, for example Customs and Border Protection, for purposes of vetting and adjudicating certain immigration bene?t applications. The following documents are drafts of weekly reports generated in power point related to collaborative data exchange and application vetting and AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICI-I - l0 (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 23 review. These documents are predecisional in that they are not ?nal versions of these reports, and further because they are used to inform the ongoing development and implementation policies and procedures relating to how this data is used. They are also deliberative. They re?ect work that is intended to facilitate candid discussion within the agency about policy and procedure. DEF- 0001 1799; DEF-0001 1800; DEF-0001 1801; DEF-0001 1802; DEF-0001 1803; DEF-0001 1805; DEF-0001 1806; DEF-0001 1807; DEF-0001 1808; 00011810; DEF-00011814. 23. USCIS established the Screening Coordination Working Group (SCWG) as a forum for the discussion of screening, background check, and hit resolution issues among USCIS of?ces responsible for screening and support. The SCWG is tasked with identifying areas of concern related to screening policies and practices, ensuring coordination and consistency within USCIS and with DHS screening processes, and identifying and developing new policies and practices for screening and information sharing. The following predecisional documents re?ect review, comment, or further proposed policy or procedural development from the SCWG. DEF-00001289 to DEF-00001291 to DEF-00001293 to DEF- 00001294; DEF-00001295 to DEF-00001298 to DEF- 00001300 to DEF-00001302 to DEF-00001305 to DEF- 00001306; DEF-00001307 to DEF-00001309 to 00001311 to DEF-00001313 to DEF-00001320 to DEF- 00001336; DEF-00001337 to DEF-00001250 to DEF- 00004064 to 24. These are predecisional dra? documents re?ecting efforts to procure training for USCIS of?cers in interviewing techniques related to CARRP. They re?ect the candid internal process of editing and commenting that is necessary to the collaborative efforts of agency personnel tasked with this procurement. DEF- 00014825; DEF-00014822 AFFIDAVIT 0F MATTHEW D. - ll (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 23 25. This document is a draft of USCIS guidance regarding personnel tasked to work with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). This version contains edits, comments, and other indicia of a collaborative internal review process involving multiple editors. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010891 26. This 2016 email exchange re?ects efforts to evaluate a question from training related to TECS. The exchange includes advice and suggestions shared internally and for purposes of providing a response, and proposing ways to improve the training. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010771 to DEF-00010772 27. This 2017 email exchange reflects a series of questions regarding efforts to prepare for a meeting to discuss background checks and efforts to meet agency goals. The exchange includes answers to the questions and comments regarding internal processes and issues. This email exchange re?ects information shared internally and for purposes of guiding decisions and actions. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010763 to DEF-00010767 28. This 2013 draft document reflects options for implementing process changes regarding national security cases at USCIS. This draft document contains edits, comments, and other indicia of an ongoing collaborative editing and review process. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-0001 1379 (also DEF-00017065) 29. These 2017 email exchanges regard the collaborative review of comments and edits related to new agency policy. They reflect issues raised by reviewers and their comments, and requests for advice and assistance regarding how to proceed. They are predecisional and deliberative. DEF-0001 1115; DEF-0001 1289 to DEF- 00011119; DEF-00011251 to DEF-0001 1354; DEF-0001 1361 to DEF- 0001 1362; DEF-0001 1374 to DEF-0001 1375; 1239 to DEF-00011240 30. This 2010 email exchange re?ects a conversation regarding the consequences of a new policy memorandum, posing questions regarding inclusions and omissions in that policy, and engaging in planning for additional work as a consequence. It reflects an internal discussion for purpose of planning future actions and guiding decisions. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010751 to DEF-00010753. OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - l2 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 23 31. This 2017 email exchange re?ects a series of status updates, questions, personal assessments, and recommendations for future action regarding a host of pressing issues as between these individuals. It re?ects information shared internally and for purposes of guiding decisions and actions. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010750 to DEF-00010750 32. This 2015 draft document was created for purposes of establishing new procedures within FDNS. This draft document contains edits, comments, and other indicia of an ongoing collaborative editing and review process. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF- 00010481 to DEF-00010487 33. This 2015 email exchange re?ects the circulation of documents with a request for review and comment, and includes guidance regarding the nature of the comment and review being requested. This email exchange further documents and discusses the responses received, and the action necessary to be taken thereafter in furtherance of stated goals. This email exchanges re?ects an ongoing collaborative review and response process. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010760 to DEF-00010762 34. This 2013 email exchange among USCIS personnel re?ects a request for information and assistance in ?lrtherance of efforts to develop or improve case processing. It also discusses personal opinions and concerns regarding matters affecting USCIS priorities, as well as efforts to explore changes in policy. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00010471 to DEF-00010472 35. This 2014 document is a draft of an FDNS Of?ce of Liaison Activity Report. This draft document re?ects assessments of the role of the Of?ce of Liaison, and provides analysis and recommendations regarding additional work that needs to be done. It is predecisional and deliberative. to DEF-00010470 36. These 2007 documents are drafts of the FDNS lnteragency Border Inspection System (IBIS) Standard Operating Procedure and an associated appendix. They contain comments, edits, highlighting, and questions, re?ecting an ongoing collaborative internal review process. These are predecisional deliberative documents. DEF-00010362 to DEF-00010538 to DEF-00010733 AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 13 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 23 37. These are 2010 and 201 1 documents created for USCIS that describe the development of CARRP web based training, including the scope of the project, ?nal deliverables, general design considerations, content outlines, and other information reflecting the planned development and implementation of training. DEF-00010195 to DEF- 00010256 to DEF-00010335 38. This is a draft of a 2009 document created to inform leadership of the reports that DNS planned to generate on a basis using the Fraud Detection and National Security Data System. This version contains edits, comments, and other indicia of a collaborative internal review process involving multiple editors. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00009260 to DEF-00009262 39. This is a draft of a 2008 document created to provide information regarding USCIS national security screening tools. This version contains edits and proposed changes from multiple editors re?ecting an ongoing collaborative internal process of review. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00009257 to DEF-00009259 40. This document re?ects suggested names for to the revision and consolidation of CARRP policy that was not implemented. They are proposals from an individual USCIS employee. They do not re?ect any final decision. DEF-00005648 41. These documents re?ect a series of USCIS draft org charts regarding speci?c of?ces and subdivisions of USCIS, including the National Security Branch, FDNS, the Of?ce and Intelligence and Analysis, and USCIS as a whole. DEF-00010865 to DEF- 00010877 to DEF-00010890 to DEF-00010883 to DEF- 00010883; to DEF-00010871 to DEF- 00004931; DEF-00004937 to DEF-0000493 8; 42. This 2013 email exchange among USCIS personnel re?ects further review and discussion of recently-discussed options to improve case processing. It re?ects comments and opinions regarding the best option to select for purposes of achieving stated goals, and also references and comments on a document provided for review and editing. Further questions and AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICI-I - l4 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 23 concerns are raised for discussion. This document is predecisional and deliberative. DEF- 00005639 (also DEF-00017064) 43. This 2016 email exchange between USCIS personnel re?ects review and comment on language used to describe data derived from a USCIS system, its limitations, as well as the actual exchange of preliminary data. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005608 to DEF-00005609 44. This 2014 email exchange between USCIS personnel reflects discussion and debate regarding the bene?ts and issues raised by information being exchanged in a report, as well as who should be included as recipients in the distribution of the information. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005586 45. These 2012 draft documents re?ect a proposal to modify USCIS CARRP processes and procedures. They describe goals, and present recommendations and analysis to support the proposed goals. These documents do not re?ect ?nal agency decisions or actions, but are documents that re?ect internal deliberation in furtherance of proposed goals. They are predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005575 to DEF-00005579 to DEF- 00005582 46. This 2016 email exchange re?ects internal discussion regarding reorganization taking place within one part of a USCIS directorate, including various naming proposals, and a request to see if any additional assistance or direction is required. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005572 to DEF-00005573 47. This 2014 email requests the specific reassignment of personnel for purposes of helping to achieve USCIS priorities related to CARRP and improve processes and procedures. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005537 to DEF-00005538 48. This 2015 email re?ects an exchange of questions, issues, and discussion regarding how certain features necessary for the referral of national security cases for legal suf?ciency review were planned to be incorporated into Electronic immigration System (ELIS). It is predecisional and deliberative. to DEF-00005536 AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICII - l5 (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 23 49. This 2017 email re?ects an exchange of questions, issues, and guidance regarding USCIS policies and procedures and possible confusion as they relate to interacting with USCIS systems. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005524 to DEF-00005525 50. This 2016 email reflects draft language and collaborative editing of a meeting notice regarding the Screening Coordination Working Group. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005521 to 51. This is 2015 email exchange between USCIS personnel regarding CARRP training, seeking review and input. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005509 (also DEF-00016588) 52. This is a 2014 email exchange between USCIS personnel regarding CARRP training, proposing changes and improvements to the training. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005504 to DEF-00005505 53. This is a 2016 email exchange between USCIS personnel regarding CARRP questions that had arisen at a meeting relating to best practices and procedures, and seeking guidance from leadership. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005520 (also DEF- 00016599) 54. This is a 2014 draft of a USCIS FDNS guidance regarding changes to internal processes and procedures for documenting National Crime Information Center (NCIC) checks in USCIS systems. It contains indicia showing that this draft was proposed change, and not a ?nal memorandum. It is a predecisional deliberative document. DEF-00005472 to DEF-00005479 55. This is a 2010 draft of a USCIS FDNS frequently asked questions (FAQ) document regarding CARRP. It contains edits, comments, and other indicia of collaborative review, discussion, editing, and debate. It is a predecisional deliberative document. DEF- 00005442 to DEF-00005468 56. This is a 2008 dra? of a USCIS FDNS document describing USCIS background check policies and procedures. It contains edits, comments, and other indicia of collaborative review, discussion, editing, and debate. It is a predecisional deliberative document. DEF- 00005058 to DEF-00005092 AFFIDAVIT 0F MATTHEW D. - 16 (2:1 mxlo?mth??oOoowo?m-kwN?oo Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 23 57. This is a 2008 draft of USCIS FDNS standard operating procedures document describing declassi?cation and the use of classi?ed information in immigration proceedings. It contains edits, comments, and other indicia of collaborative review, discussion, editing, and debate. It is a predecisional deliberative document. DEF-00004991 to 58. This draft internal 2013 presentation describes proposed changes to FDNS systems in furtherance of leadership goals and to improve processing of cases. It is consistent with ongoing efforts to review, revise, and improve internal processes and procedures, and reflects the kind of predecisional internal planning and deliberation that is necessary to the proper function of this agency. DEF-00004971 to DEF-00004989 59. This 2009 internal review was prepared for the Chief of FDNS. It proposes changes that would affect the structure of the National Security Branch, and includes a proposed plan to implement those changes. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00004919 to DEF- 00004923 60. This is a 2013 email from a USCIS employee who attended CARRP training directed to a general mailbox where questions were directed. It seeks guidance and clari?cation regarding matters discussed in the training, and in furtherance of the individual?s proper understanding of CARRP policy and procedure, which will be necessary when he or she uses thiJ information to make decisions. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00004401 to DEF- 00004401 61. This is a draft of a fact sheet for naturalization applicants regarding the security screenings conducted by USCIS. It reflects edits, comments, and other indicia of candid collaborative internal review among USCIS personnel for the purposes of revising and editing consistent with USCIS policy and procedure. This document is predecisional and deliberative. to DEF-00005490 62. This is a draft of a USCIS presentation prepared to support discussion of possible future enhancements to policies and procedures regarding information sharing with law enforcement. It discusses current and anticipated procedures and policies related to AFFIDAVIT or MATTHEW o. EMRICH - l7 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 18 of 23 information sharing. It is a predecisional document that is deliberative in nature. DEF- 00004034 to DEF-00004042 63. This is a predecisional 2015 dra? document re?ecting proposed revisions to TECS Record Creation Standard Operation Procedures. It contains edits, comments, and other indicia of the collaborative review and editing process that is a necessary part of internal review of changes to policy and procedures. DEF-00003253 to DEF-00003269 64. This is a Field Of?ce Directorate document re?ecting the collection of information that various contributors suggest should be included in a standardized memo prepared for purposes of resolving TECS information. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00003045 to DEF-00003049 65. This document is a draft of a USCIS FDNS briefing paper from 201 1. It was prepared to assist in the brie?ng of DNS leadership regarding certain issues related to the vetting of cases being considered by FDNS, identifying possible solutions, and recommending one from among those solutions for possible implementation. It is an un?nished dra?. It is predecisional and deliberative. to DEF-00003008 66. This document is a draft of a USCIS National Bene?t Center SOP regarding CARRP referrals. It re?ects comments and edits consistent with the process of collaborative review that is necessary to the effective implementation of USCIS policy and procedure. DEF- 00001 375 to DEF-00001446 67. This document is a dra? of a paper from April of 2016 that was prepared to assist in the brie?ng of USCIS senior leadership regarding certain national security issues. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00001371 to DEF-00001373 68. These predecisional documents and emails re?ect the editing and development of USCIS training regarding cases that may raise national security concerns. They include email, draft word processing documents, and draft power point presentations memorializing the ongoing comment, review, and editing process necessary to the development of this training. DEF-00015004 to DEF- AFFIDAVIT 0F MATTHEW D. - I8 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ) Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 19 of 23 00015013; DEF-0001 5019; DEF-00015000 to DEF-00015008 to 69. These are predecisional documents re?ecting the development of annual goals and priorities for FDNS, in furtherance of achieving agency goals, implementing policy, improving processes and procedures, and identifying issues that may require additional attention. These documents re?ect the drafting, editing, and revision of annual goals, including candid debate and discussion among USCIS personnel regarding that effort. DEF-00005595 to DEF-00005598 to DEF-00005615 to DEF- 00005623 to DEF-00005631 to DEF-00005587 to DEF- 00005594; DEF-00010473 to DEF-00010740 to DEF-00010741 (also DEF- 00016527 to DEF-00010742 to DEF-00010773 to DEF- 00010774; DEF-0001 653 9. 70. These are predecisional draft documents that re?ect the cooperative internal review and revision processes that are a necessary part of developing and managing training, in ?thherance of agency policy objectives. The training in questions regards helping USCIS personnel develop communication skills and strategies necessary for conducting interviews and assessing responses. DEF-0001 1868; DEF- 0001 1871 71 . This email discusses the status of an interim policy under consideration at USCIS at the time. The policy had not been adopted and the email relates questions, concerns, and discussion points in anticipation of the potential adoption of the policy. This email and its contents re?ect the candid predecisional discussion and debate necessary to the effective implementation of agency policy. DEF-00005480 (also DEF-00016525) 72. USCIS creates guidance and standard operating procedure documents for purposes of aiding adj udicators and other of?cers. This is a predecisional comment draft of a document providing guidance regarding screening and notification issues that may come up during the processing of a case. DEF-00001348 to DEF-00001370 AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 19 (2: I Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 20 of 23 73. USCIS FDNS of?cers encounter information that has national security signi?cance in the context of cases they review. USCIS FDNS has developed procedures and policies to guide personnel in that aspect of their work. The following documents are predecisional draft versions of procedural guidance regarding the handling of such information. They contain edits, comments, highlighting, and other indicia consistent with the candid internal review and development of agency policy and procedure. to l; to DEF-00010017 to DEF-00010077 to DEF- 00010136; DEF-00010137 to DEF-00005093 to DEF- 00005212 to DEF-00005275 to DEF-00005328 to DEF- 00005381; DEF-00005382 to DEF-00010758 74. This is an email forwarding a predecisional draft version of procedural guidance regarding the handling of national security information. It contains internal direction and guidance consistent with the candid internal review and development of agency policy and procedure. DEF-00010758 (also marked DEF-00016571) 75. The following predecisional draft documents reflect development of agency guidance prepared to provide further clari?cation and direction regarding matters pertaining to the vetting of cases involving national security concerns. The various drafts here reflect edits, comments, questions and other indicia of the necessary predecisional review and development of internal agency guidance documents. DEF-0001 1074; DEF-0001 1075; DEF- 00011077; DEF-0001 1078; DEF-00005539 to DEF-00010778 to DEF-00009765 to DEF-00008691 to DEF- 00005026 to DEF-00008723 to to DEF- 00005691; DEF-00004120 to DEF-00004365 to DEF- 00009255 to DEF-00010913 to DEF-00010942 76. These predecisional dra? documents re?ect the development of a working aid and training intended to provide USCIS personnel with guidance regarding how to determine whether an articulable link exists between an individual and a national security concern and how to properly record and report information. DEF-0001 1273; DEF-0001 1275; DEF-0001 1543; AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH . 20 Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 21 of 23 DEF-00016573 to to DEF-00004477 to DEF- 0004480; DEF-00004403 to DEF-00005509 [also DEF- 00016589; to DEF-00016595 to DEF- 00016598; DEF-00016600 to 6949; DEF-0001 1276 to DEF- 00011277 77. These predecisional draft documents re?ect the development of a statistical report on workload and production numbers related to the FDNS mission, including work on national security related cases. DEF-00004963 to DEF-00004966 to DEF-00004969 to DEF-00004970 78. This document is an internal e-mail re?ecting candid discussion regarding the possibility of generating statistical information that could be released to the public, and requesting comment. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00005485 79. These are draft power point trainings regarding interview techniques. DEF- 00012277; 80. This document is an internal e-mail discussing questions relating to a future internal audit of use and recording of time in processing national security cases. DEF-00005583 to DEF-00005584 This document contains meeting minutes from an FDNS ?eld manager?s seminar, and re?ects internal discussion and information exchange on FDNS issues re?ecting review, comment, or further proposed policy or procedural development. DEF-00010336 to DEF- 00010360 82. This predecisional draft document re?ects the development of training for CARRP, including issues in current training and possible goals for new training. to DEF-000 0505; DEF-00010864 83. This predecisional draft e-mail and report re?ects intemal discussions about launching a new caseload management process. to DEF-00010738 AFFIDAVIT or MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 2 (2: Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 22 of 23 84. This document is an internal discussion memo regarding takeaways from a scheduling pilot project that at USCIS Application Support Centers (ASCs). it part of the candid process of review and comment that is necessary to review a test or pilot program, and that may inform whether the pilot can or should be adopted or by the agency. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-0001 1650 85. These are predecisional internal draft documents and notes relating to developing vetting processes for applicant information. DEF-0001 1765; DEF-0001 1766 to DEF-00011775 to DEF-00011815 to DEF-00011790 to DEF- 0001 1793 86. These dra? documents re?ect internal discussion and input regarding how to improve training presentations relating to the conduct of interviews, including comments, proposed edits, questions, and suggestions about how to improve the presentation. They are predecisional and deliberative. DEF-0001 1887 to to DEF- 00011904; DEF-00012099 to 00012102; DEF-00012103 to DEF-000121 16 87. This document is a draft version of a memorandum intended to provide guidance regarding the CARRP handling of DACA cases with NS concerns. it is predecisional and is part of the internal deliberative process of drafting, editing, commenting, and revising policy and procedure in advance of implementation. DEF-00001233 to DEF-00001234 88. These are predecisional draft documents regarding how USCIS personnel should resolve potential national security cases that involve information from the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, including policy and procedure under consideration. 00001269 to DEF-00003042 to DEF-00003044 89. This document is draft FDNS-DS User Guide training which re?ects the editing and development of USCIS training regarding cases that may raise national security concerns and use of FDNS-DS system. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF-00016572 90. This is an email forwarding a draft of USCIS Operational Guidance for the Audiovisual Recording of Immigration Interviews, providing comments and discussion, and AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICH - 22 (2: l7-cv-00094-RAJ Case Document 174-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 23 of 23 requesting further comment. It is predecisional and deliberative. DEF- 00016526. 91. These documents re?ect deliberative, predecisional discussions between agency of?cials regarding whether the agency should contract for interview training, the selection of a vendor for interview techniques training, and exchanging an existing interview training project plan. DEF-00014818 to DEF-00014859 to DEF-00014862 to DEF-00014864 92. This document re?ects deliberative, pre-decisional notes on the implementation of EB Form 1-485 interview and adjudication process. DEF-00015176 93. The matters contained in this declaration are based upon my review of documents which have been withheld in the case of Waga?e, el al., v. Trump, et aI., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, my personal knowledge, my knowledge of the documents kept by in the course of ordinary business, and on information provided to me by other employees in the course of my of?cial duties as Associate Director of FDNS. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of April, 2018 at Washington, DC. Matthew D. Emrich Associate Director, FDNS US. Citizenship and Immigration Services Washington, DC. AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW D. EMRICII - 23 (2: