Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 11 1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendants. 15 No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: June 29, 2018 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 11 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 4 5 6 Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1  II. III. IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................... 1  LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 2  ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3  A. The Court Should Order Disclosure of the Documents Described in Paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Emrich Affidavit ...................................................... 3  B. In the Alternative, Plaintiffs Request In Camera Review of a Sample of Documents from Paragraphs 17 and 45 ................................................................. 5  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 6  7 8 9 V. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE - (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – i Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 11 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 Desert Survivors v. US Dep’t of the Interior, 231 F. Supp. 3d 368 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .......................................................................................6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 FTC v. Warner Commc’ns, 742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................2 Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................5 Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................3, 4 Rodriguez v. City of Fontana, No. EDCV 16-1903-JGB, 2017 WL 4676261 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) .................................4 Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Cal. Dep’t of Managed Health Care, 322 F.R.D. 571 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ...............................................................................................6 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Perkins Coie LLP PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – ii 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 11 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 In its May 21, 2018 order (Dkt. # 189), the Court requested supplemental briefing on 40 3 categories of documents that Defendants withheld under the deliberative process privilege. The 4 parties have since conferred and resolved their differences with respect to 95 percent of those 5 documents—38 of the 40 categories. With respect to the two remaining categories, however, 6 Plaintiffs’ need for the documents outweighs any interest in nondisclosure, as the documents are 7 highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding CARRP or its successor extreme vetting programs. 8 Plaintiffs therefore renew their challenge to Defendants’ assertion of the privilege over the two 9 remaining categories of documents. 10 11 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 21, 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel certain 12 documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege. See Dkt. # 189. With respect to 13 other documents, however, the Court requested that Plaintiffs file a supplemental brief “more 14 precisely challeng[ing] [Defendants’] remaining privilege assertions” in light of the affidavit filed 15 by Matthew D. Emrich. Id. at 9; see also Dkt. # 174-3. Specifically, the Court requested briefing 16 with respect to the documents “described in paragraphs 15-21, 23, 28-30, 32, 40, 42, 45-46, 48, 17 51-52, 54, 56, 58-59, 62-63, 68, 70-74, 76, 78, 83-85, 88, 90-92 of Mr. Emrich’s affidavit.” Dkt. 18 # 189 at 7 n.3. 19 The Court later granted the parties’ stipulated motion to postpone supplemental briefing to 20 allow the parties to meet and confer regarding these remaining categories of documents. See Dkt. 21 # 190. On June 7, 2018, the parties conferred via conference call, and Plaintiffs indicated they 22 were willing to focus on just eight of the remaining 40 categories. On June 12, 2018, Defendants 23 provided Plaintiffs with additional information regarding the eight categories. See Declaration of 24 Laura K. Hennessey (“Hennessey Decl.”) Ex. 1. With respect to certain categories, Defendants 25 pointed Plaintiffs to final versions of the documents or agreed to produce final versions of the 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 1 (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 11 1 documents. See id. Defendants also produced several of the documents at issue on June 14, 2018. 2 In light of Defendants’ June 12 email and June 14 production, Plaintiffs decided to forego 3 challenging six of the eight categories and focus only on the documents listed in Paragraphs 17 4 and 45. 5 On June 15, 2018 (the same day Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief was due), Defendants 6 offered to produce an “exemplar” document from Paragraph 17 (DEF-00000667) redacted only 7 for law-enforcement and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs intend to continue conferring with 8 Defendants regarding their offer over the next few days, and the parties will alert the Court if they 9 resolve their differences. In the meantime, however, Plaintiffs maintain that the balancing test 10 weighs in favor of disclosure with respect to the documents listed in Paragraphs 17 and 45, and 11 request a ruling from the Court to that effect. 12 13 Plaintiffs now renew their motion to compel disclosure of two of the original 40 categories: the documents listed in Paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Emrich affidavit. 14 15 III. LEGAL STANDARDS The deliberative process privilege is a qualified, not an absolute, privilege. FTC v. Warner 16 Commc’ns, 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). A party may obtain disclosure of deliberative 17 materials if it can establish that the need for the materials to allow for accurate fact-finding 18 outweighs the government’s interest in non-disclosure. Id. In deciding whether the qualified 19 privilege should be overcome, a court may consider “1) the relevance of the evidence; 2) the 20 availability of other evidence; 3) the government’s role in the litigation; and 4) the extent to 21 which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies 22 and decisions.” Id. 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 11 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 IV. A. ARGUMENT The Court Should Order Disclosure of the Documents Described in Paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Emrich Affidavit 1. Paragraph 17 The documents described in Paragraph 17 are “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.” Dkt. # 174-3 ¶ 17. Plaintiffs’ “need for the[se] documents outweighs the Government’s need to withhold the documents.” Dkt. # 189 at 7. First, policy memoranda and manuals relating to CARRP are highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that CARRP imposes unlawful, extra-statutory hurdles on individuals applying for residency or citizenship who are alleged to have an “articulable link” to activities, entities, or individuals raising national security concerns. See Dkt. # 47 ¶¶ 9-11, 21, 55-97, 273-78, 289-93. Such documents are also relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that “CARRP labels applicants national security concerns based on vague and overbroad criteria that often turn on national origin or innocuous and lawful activities or associations.” Id. ¶ 76. Moreover, the documents will likely shed light on the motivations behind CARRP and the criteria Defendants employ in evaluating individuals for security risks. Defendants may argue that the documents are not relevant because, according to Defendants, they were “never finalized or implemented.” Hennessey Decl. Ex. 1; see also, e.g., Dkt. # 153 at p. 31 (entry in privilege log stating that document was “not adopted”). But even draft policy documents may provide insight into the motivations behind CARRP; even if the specific policy memoranda and manuals at issue were not put into effect, they relate to the overarching program that Plaintiffs challenge in this case, and thus may contain information about the motivations behind CARRP as a whole. The documents may also reveal the details of existing policy. Indeed, “whenever an agency seeks to change a policy, it logically starts by discussing the existing policy.” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 875-76 (D.C. Cir. PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 11 1 2010). An agency may not “avail itself of [the deliberative process privilege] to shield existing 2 policy from disclosure simply by describing the policy in a document that as a whole is 3 predecisional, such as a memo written in contemplation of a change in that very policy.” Id. at 4 876. Thus, to the extent the policy memoranda and manuals discuss existing policies, those 5 portions of the documents are highly relevant and should be disclosed. 6 Second, Plaintiffs lack access to other evidence that would negate the need for disclosure, 7 as Plaintiffs have not located any “final” documents in Defendants’ productions outlining CARRP 8 policies and procedures. See Dkt. # 189 at 7. Without such documents, draft policy memoranda 9 and manuals relating to CARRP may provide Plaintiffs with the best (and only) evidence of what 10 11 CARRP is and how it is applied. Third, the Government’s role in the litigation weighs in favor of disclosure because, as 12 this Court explained, “the Government plays a central role in this case” and “‘the basis for its 13 action is a central issue in the litigation.’” Id. (quoting Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, No. CV- 14 12-02546-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 171923, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2014)). 15 Fourth, any risk that disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding 16 contemplated policies and decisions is substantially mitigated by the existence of the parties’ 17 stipulated protective order. See Rodriguez v. City of Fontana, No. EDCV 16-1903-JGB (KKx), 18 2017 WL 4676261, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) (“[T]he Court finds disclosure of the 19 information sought subject to an appropriate protective order will not harm the generally asserted 20 governmental interest in confidentiality of performance evaluations.”). 21 22 Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court order disclosure of the documents listed in Paragraph 17 of the Emrich affidavit. 23 2. 24 Defendants explained in their June 12 email that the two documents described in Paragraph 45 25 Paragraph 45 are “draft, four-page documents entitled ‘Executive Summary: CARRP 26 Enforcement Practice Proposal.’” Hennessey Decl. Ex. 1. “The documents propose identifying PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 4 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 11 1 CARRP cases that pose the most serious threats to national security by applying a risk-based 2 prioritization process.” Id. The privilege log describes the documents more generically as “an 3 internal proposal shared between agency officials on how to distinguish an immigration benefit 4 application subjected to the CARRP.” Dkt. # 153 at p. 111. According to the Emrich affidavit, 5 “[t]hese 2012 draft documents reflect a proposal to modify USCIS CARRP processes and 6 procedures,” and “describe goals, and present recommendations and analysis to support the 7 proposed goals.” Dkt. # 174-3 ¶ 45. Defendants have “attempted to identify whether any finalized 8 policies or procedures derived from [these documents], but have been unable to do so at this 9 time.” Hennessey Decl. Ex. 1. 10 For the reasons explained with respect to the documents in Paragraph 17, Plaintiffs’ need 11 for these documents outweighs Defendants’ interest in nondisclosure. Information on “how to 12 distinguish an immigration benefit application subjected to the CARRP” is highly relevant to 13 Plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. # 153 at p. 111. Similarly, “CARRP processes and procedures,” which 14 include “goals,” are directly relevant to Defendants’ motivation for enacting CARRP and the 15 criteria used to delay or deny applications. Dkt. # 174-3 ¶ 45. USCIS’s proposed “risk-based 16 prioritization process” would also shed light on how CARRP is applied and what factors USCIS 17 considers in determining whether an individual poses a national security threat. Hennessey Decl. 18 Ex. 1. The remaining balancing factors also weigh in favor of disclosure for the reasons stated 19 above with respect to the documents in Paragraph 17. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the 20 Court order disclosure of these documents. 21 B. 22 23 24 25 26 In the Alternative, Plaintiffs Request In Camera Review of a Sample of Documents from Paragraphs 17 and 45 Plaintiffs are “at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to controvert the agency’s claims” of privilege because they “[do] not have access to the withheld materials.” Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1997). On June 15, 2018, Defendants offered to produce an “exemplar” document from Paragraph 17 (DEF-00000667) redacted only PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 5 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 9 of 11 1 for law-enforcement and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs intend to continue negotiating with 2 Defendants regarding the terms of their offer. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, 3 however, Plaintiffs request that the Court review a random sample of the documents in camera if 4 it has questions regarding the proper application of the balancing test. See Dkt. # 189 at 8 (“When 5 considering this supplemental briefing, the Court will determine whether in camera review of the 6 targeted documents is necessary.); see also, e.g., Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Cal. Dep’t of 7 Managed Health Care, 322 F.R.D. 571, 590 (S.D. Cal. 2017); Desert Survivors v. US Dep’t of the 8 Interior, 231 F. Supp. 3d 368, 382 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Plaintiffs request that for the in camera 9 review by Court, Defendants remove all redactions and indicate by highlighting what information 10 11 12 13 they would redact on the basis of other claimed privileges. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion to compel the documents listed in Paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Emrich affidavit. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 6 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DATED: June 15, 2018 s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice) s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5236 Facsimile: (213) 997-5297 jpasquarella@aclusocal.org sahmed@aclusocal.org s/Matt Adams s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid Matt Adams #28287 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 Facsimile: (206) 587-4025 matt@nwirp.org glenda@nwirp.org s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice) s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice) Trina Realmuto Kristin Macleod-Ball American Immigration Council 100 Summer St., 23rd Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (857) 305-3600 Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org Email: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org s/Hugh Handeyside Hugh Handeyside #39792 s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice) s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2616 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org hhandeyside@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org s/Emily Chiang Emily Chiang #50517 ACLU of Washington Foundation 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624-2184 Echiang@aclu-wa.org 18 20 21 22 23 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com NGellert@perkinscoie.com DPerez@perkinscoie.com LHennessey@perkinscoie.com s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice) Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com 17 19 s/ Harry H. Schneider, Jr. Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404 s/ Nicholas P. Gellert Nicholas P. Gellert #18041 s/ David A. Perez David A. Perez #43959 s/ Laura K. Hennessey Laura K. Hennessey #47447 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 7 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194 Filed 06/15/18 Page 11 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below, I caused service of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such filing to all counsel of record herein. DATED this 15th day of June, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. 7 8 By: s/Laura K. Hennessey Laura K. Hennessey Attorney for Plaintiffs Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Emai139086283l: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Perkins Coie LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194-1 Filed 06/15/18 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 11 12 13 14 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: June 29, 2018 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194-1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 4 1 THE COURT, having considered the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion 2 to Compel re Deliberative Process Privilege and being fully advised, now hereby 3 ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED; and further 4 ORDERS that Defendants produce the documents listed in paragraphs 17 and 45 of the 5 Emrich affidavit (Dkt. # 174-3) within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. 6 DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2018. 7 8 9 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194-1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 4 1 DATED this 15th day of June, 2018. 2 Presented by: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice) s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5236 Facsimile: (213) 997-5297 jpasquarella@aclusocal.org sahmed@aclusocal.org s/Matt Adams s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid Matt Adams #28287 Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 Facsimile: (206) 587-4025 matt@nwirp.org glenda@nwirp.org s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice) Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice) s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice) Trina Realmuto Kristin Macleod-Ball American Immigration Council 100 Summer St., 23rd Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (857) 305-3600 Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org Email: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org s/Hugh Handeyside Hugh Handeyside #39792 s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice) s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2616 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org hhandeyside@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org s/Emily Chiang Emily Chiang #50517 ACLU of Washington Foundation 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624-2184 Echiang@aclu-wa.org 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 s/Harry H. Schneider, Jr. Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404 s/Nicholas P. Gellert Nicholas P. Gellert #18041 s/David A. Perez David A. Perez #43959 s/Laura K. Hennessey Laura K. Hennessey #47447 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com NGellert@perkinscoie.com DPerez@perkinscoie.com LHennessey@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 194-1 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 4 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the 4 foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE 5 PROCESS PRIVILEGE via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such 6 filing to all counsel of record herein. 7 DATED this 15th day of June, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. 8 s/Laura K. Hennessey Laura K. Hennessey #47447 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000