Case Document 181 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 3 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et at, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, No. ORDER DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Plaintiffs, V. Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants" Motion for Leave to Submit Documents Ex Park, In Camera. cht. #147. Per the Court?s orders and subsequent to a telephonic hearing, the parties submitted supplemental brie?ng and reSponses.1 Dkt. 149 (telephonic hearing), 154 (Defendants? supplemental brie?ng), 163 (Plaintiffs? respOnse), 169 (Defendants? reply). 1 The Court strongly disfavors footnoted legal citations. In its Standing Order, the Court made clear its policy that citations need to appear in the. body of the brief and not in footnotes. Dkt. 65? at fl 9. The Court reiterated its distaste for footnoted citations and legal arguments in its Order on Plaintiffs? motion to compel. Dkt. 98 at 4. Footnoted citations serve as an end?run around page limits and formatting requirements dictated by the Local Rules. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR Moreover, several courts have observed that ?citations are highly relevant in a legal brief? and including them in footnotes ?makes brief?readin difficult.? Wichansky v. Zowine, N0. 2014 WL 289924, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2014). The Court strongly discourages the parties from footnoting their legal citations in any future submissions. See Kano v. Nat ?1 Consumer Co-op Bank, 22 F.3d 899?900 (9th Cir. 1994). Because the Court has now repeatedly warned the parties against footnoting their citations and arguments, the Court may use its discretion in the future to refuse to consider citations, arguments, or other information provided in footnotes. 'Case Document 181 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 3 Defendants ?led this motion in response to Plaintiffs? motion for sanctions. Dkt. 137. In their motion for sanctions, Plaintiffs; requested relief includes production of Named Plaintiffs? 'unredacted A Files. Dkt. 137' at 20. Defendants ?led this motion because they argue that the parties have not had the opportunity to brief the privilege issues associated with producing unredacted A Files. Therefore, Defendants aver that the Court must review certain information?speci?cally two potentially classi?ed docurnents??if the Court-were to consider compelling productiOn of the unredacted A Files. I The Court has attempted toendeavor to create as complete a public record as possible. In order to assess Defendantsa iclaim, the next progressive step. is for the Court to conduct an independent, in camera review of the subject declarations. This step must . - be taken in light of the national security claims raised by Defendants. The Court is satis?ed that it must review the classi?ed documents associated with Defendants? response to the motion for sanctions because this will be necessary to decide what relief, if any, is appropriate. To be sure, the Court remains skeptical that Defendants could not have raised these privilege issues at the appropriate timewthat is, in response to the motion to compel, or even in a motion for reconsideration, rather than in response to a motion for sanctions. Defendants gain an unfair advantage by strategically delaying in this way. However, the Court cannot award Plaintiffs the relief they seek if that relief?speci?cally, disclosure of the unredacted A Files, Dkt. 137 at 20?has articulable potential to damage the national interest. For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendants? motion to ?le the" declarations of Carl Ghattas and Matthew D. Emrich ex parte and in camera. Dkt. 147. Case Document 181 Filed 05/04/18 Page 3 of 3 Dated this 44th day of May, 2018. . .- HONORABLE RICHARD . ENES UNITED STATES DISTRIC JUDGE