Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 8 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. 17-cv-00094 RAJ DECLARATION OF LAURA K. HENNESSEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF LAURA K. HENNESSEY (No. 17-cv-00094 RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.35.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 8 1 I, Laura K. Hennessey, hereby declare: 2 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below and am competent to testify 3 regarding the same. I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiffs in this matter, Wagafe v. Trump, 4 No. 17-cv-00094 RAJ. 5 2. On June 7, 2018, the parties conferred via conference call regarding the categories 6 of documents with respect to which the Court requested supplemental briefing in its order 7 dated May 21, 2018. Plaintiffs indicated they were willing to focus on just eight of the 8 remaining 40 categories. 9 3. On June 12, 2018, Defendants sent Plaintiffs an email providing additional 10 information regarding the documents in the eight categories Plaintiffs had identified. Attached 11 as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ June 12 email. 12 13 4. On June 14, 2018, Defendants produced several of the documents at issue in one of the eight categories. 14 5. On June 15, 2018, Defendants offered to produce an “exemplar” document from 15 Paragraph 17 (DEF-00000667) redacted only for law-enforcement and attorney-client privilege. 16 The parties are continuing to discuss the terms of Defendants’ offer. 17 EXECUTED this 15th day of June, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. 18 /s/ Laura K. Hennessey Laura K. Hennessey 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF LAURA K. HENNESSEY (No. 17-cv-00094 RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.35.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below, I caused service of the foregoing DECLARATION OF LAURA K. HENNESSEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 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 #47447 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (No. 17-cv-00094 RAJ) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.35.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 8 Babani, Vicki Lynn (SEA) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Brinkman, Andrew (CIV) Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:12 PM Gellert, Nicholas (SEA); Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA); Perez, David A. (SEA); Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG); Matt Adams (matt@nwirp.org); Ruben, Lauren (DEN) Flentje, August (CIV); Kipnis, Brian (USAWAW); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Brinkman, Andrew (CIV); Jentzer, Lyle (CIV); Julius, Derek (CIV); Kanter, Ethan (CIV); Menkin, Jeff (CIV); Moore, Brendan T. (CIV); Murphy, Lindsay M. (CIV); Taranto, Leon B. (CIV) RE: Wagafe v. Trump - Meet and Confer Next Week Counsel, Thank you for identifying eight categories of documents that you are considering for supplemental briefing regarding the Defendants’ assertion of deliberative process privilege. We appreciate the opportunity to attempt to resolve these issues without Court intervention, and we hope to be able to reach an agreement. We have reviewed the documents from each category and discussed them with USCIS. We offer the following information and proposals. This information also answers the questions you sent us earlier today. Regarding paragraphs 28, 45, 54, 85, we did not mean to assert that our deliberative process claims are perfectly congruent with our law enforcement privilege claims. We apologize if we gave you that impression during our phone call. We do not think it makes sense to waive our deliberative process claims as to those categories of documents, but we have identified some alternatives as you will see below. Paragraph 17 - Draft CARRP policy memoranda and guidance These documents are primarily (1) drafts of a USCIS policy memorandum, and (2) drafts of a USCIS operational guidance document. According to USCIS, the policy memorandum and operational guidance were never finalized or implemented. USCIS identified the importance of protecting the information as high. Applying the balancing test described in the Court’s April 11 order, we do not believe these draft documents are relevant to the litigation because they are drafts, and because the underlying policies and guidance were never finalized or implemented. Accordingly, we do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. Paragraph 20 – Draft NaBISCOP revisions These documents are primarily (1) draft versions of the NaBISCOP, or (2) draft versions of discrete sections of the NaBISCOP. The NaBISCOP is considered a living document and is updated as the need arises. Per our discussion during last week’s meet and confer, we have attempted to identify any finalized versions of the NaBISCOP that have been produced. We have produced at least one final version of the NaBISCOP in its entirety, dated in 2012. See DEF00003593. Since 2012, USCIS stopped storing the NaBISCOP as a single paper document. Thus, we have also produced several recent, final versions of discrete sections of the NaBISCOP. See DEF-00004486, DEF-00004489, DEF00004491, DEF-00004492, DEF-00004494, DEF-00004496, DEF-00004497, DEF-00004498, DEF-00004499, DEF00004501, DEF-00004504, DEF-00004506, DEF-00019585, DEF-00004507, DEF-00004509, DEF-00004511, DEF00004513. DEF-00004515, DEF-00004518, DEF-00004519, DEF-00004527, DEF-00004530, DEF-00004535. Applying the balancing test described in the Court’s order, we do not believe these draft documents are relevant to the litigation because they are drafts. In addition, we have provided, and we will continue to provide, finalized NaBISCOP documents that should obviate your need for discovery of the draft documents. Accordingly, we do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. However, by directing you to the final NaBISCOP documents which have been produced, we hope to avoid a discovery dispute about draft versions of the NaBISCOP documents. 1 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 8 Paragraph 28 – Draft Prioritization Scorecard “Options Paper” This document is a draft, seven-page “Options Paper” from 2013 entitled “Intelligence Assessment Process and Use of Prioritization Scorecard.” According to USCIS, the document was never finalized. We attempted to identify whether any finalized policies or procedures derived from this draft document, but we have been unable to do so at this time. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to this document. Paragraph 45 – Draft proposal to modify CARRP These are draft, four-page documents entitled “Executive Summary: CARRP Enforcement Practice Proposal.” The documents propose identifying CARRP cases that pose the most serious threats to national security by applying a risk-based prioritization process. According to USCIS, the draft document was not reduced to a final version. We attempted to identify whether any finalized policies or procedures derived from this draft document, but have been unable to do so at this time. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. Paragraph 54 – Draft guidance for documenting NCIC checks This is a draft revision of a 2012 policy memorandum. The draft is entitled “Operational Guidance for Conducting and Documenting NCIC III Checks.” It describes the circumstances when an NCIC check can be requested, and it explains how the check should be documented in USCIS systems. The 2012 memorandum was produced at DEF00004483. According to USCIS, this draft revision was never finalized, but the guidance contained in this draft revision appears to have been incorporated into the NaBISCOP at section V(g). Section V(g) of the NaBISCOP does not appear to have been produced yet, but we will make sure it gets collected, reviewed, and produced. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. However, by providing this information and promising to produce NaBISCOP section V(g), we hope to avoid a discovery dispute about this draft document. Paragraph 73 – Draft documents re: the handling of national security information These documents are primarily draft “Standard Operating Procedures” from 2008 describing how to handle classified information when processing an immigration benefit application subjected to the CARRP. The documents primarily focus on the proper handling of classified information generally. The documents also explain that adjudicators should not use classified information to deny a benefit application without approval. According to USCIS, these draft Standard Operating Procedures were never adopted. The benchmark policy on handling classified information in the adjudication of immigration benefit applications is the 2004 Ridge memorandum, which Defendants have produced. See DEF-00003995. The procedures for handling classified information are also delineated within the 04/24/2008 Domestic Operations CARRP guidance document, and the 2/6/2009 Field operations memo, which Defendants have also produced. See DEF-00019507, DEF-00000191. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. However, by explaining the contents of these documents, drawing these connections, and directing you to the produced documents, we hope we can avoid a discovery dispute about these draft documents. Paragraph 76 – Draft documents re: articulable link training This paragraph contains a variety of documents: (1) six draft documents titled “Structured Framework for Determining an Articulable Link to National Security Concerns” and an email proposing edits to that same document; (2) an email with questions about the “articulable link initiative”; (3) two draft CARRP training documents; (4) an email about CARRP training documents; (5) two draft FAQ documents; (6) a compilation of questions about CARRP; and (7) a draft portion of a policy manual. The “Structured Framework for Determining an Articulable Link to National Security Concerns” was finalized and produced. See DEF-00019469. An associated training presentation was also produced. See  DEF-00016956. It is unclear whether the CARRP training presentations were finalized, but they do not appear to be materially different from other CARRP training presentations have been produced. One of the FAQ documents was finalized and produced. See DEF-00020444. The other FAQ document was finalized, but the final is awaiting review. We will make sure the second FAQ document is produced. The draft policy manual was not adopted by the agency. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents. However, by providing this information and promising to produce the finalized FAQ document, we hope we can avoid a discovery dispute about these draft documents. 2 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 8 Paragraph 84 – Documents and notes relating to the Continuous Immigration Vetting program These five documents relate to the Continuous Immigration Vetting program. There are (1) three documents outlining plans for implementing the Continuous Immigration Vetting program; (2) one draft document “for discussion purposes only” proposing to study one aspect of the Continuous Immigration Vetting program; and (3) one document containing rough notes about issues with the program and ideas for troubleshooting them. We do not intend to waive our deliberative process privilege claims as to these documents.   Please let us know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Drew Drew Brinkman Trial Attorney, Hiring and Internship Coordinator United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation – Appellate Section (202) 305-7035 From: Gellert, Nicholas (Perkins Coie) [mailto:NGellert@perkinscoie.com]   Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:32 AM  To: Hennessey, Laura K. (Perkins Coie) ; Flentje, August (CIV)    Cc: Julius, Derek (CIV) ; Murphy, Lindsay M. (CIV) ; Brinkman,  Andrew (CIV) ; Jentzer, Lyle (CIV) ; Kanter, Ethan (CIV)  ; Menkin, Jeff (CIV) ; Moore, Brendan T. (CIV)  ; Kipnis, Brian (USAWAW) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV)  ; Perez, David A. (Perkins Coie) ; Sameer Ahmed  (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Matt Adams (matt@nwirp.org) ; Ruben,  Lauren (Perkins Coie)   Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump ‐ Meet and Confer Next Week    Auggie,     On our call last week, we discussed the eight categories of documents plaintiffs may request in a supplemental  brief.   Our understanding was that you were going to get back to us by now with respect to Defendants’ position on  those eight categories, including providing the following information unless you were going to agree to produce the  documents:     1. Paragraphs 20 and 76:  You believed that the final versions of these documents had been produced, but you  were going to verify and provide us with the Bates numbers.      2. Paragraph 73:  Whether the documents described in this paragraph concern only the handling of  classified/sensitive information (as opposed to the handling of national security cases).  3. Paragraphs 28, 45, 54, 85: Defendants assert that all the documents in these categories are also protected under  the law enforcement privilege.  Defendants were going to consider our proposal (or provide an alternative) that  Defendants agree not to assert the deliberative process privilege, leaving the only issue on these documents the  resolution of the law enforcement privilege,  so the parties do not unnecessarily burden the Court with  additional briefing?      As you know, our supplemental brief is due on Friday, so we would appreciate hearing from you ASAP, but no later than  4:00 Pacific today.  Many thanks.     3 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 195 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 8   From: Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA)   Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:11 AM  To: Flentje, August (CIV)   Cc: Julius, Derek (CIV) ; Murphy, Lindsay M. (CIV) ;  Brinkman, Andrew (CIV) ; Jentzer, Lyle (CIV) ; Kanter, Ethan  (CIV) ; Menkin, Jeff (CIV) ; Moore, Brendan T. (CIV)  ; Kipnis, Brian (USAWAW) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV)  ; Gellert, Nicholas (SEA) ; Perez, David A. (SEA)  ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Matt Adams  (matt@nwirp.org) ; Ruben, Lauren (DEN)   Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump ‐ Meet and Confer Next Week    Counsel, Thank you for your production of documents dated June 4, 2018. We will not receive the documents until tomorrow, and it will likely take us several days to complete our review. In the meantime, however, we appreciate your willingness to work with us in resolving privilege disputes over individual documents without unnecessarily burdening the Court. In that spirit, we have reviewed the 40 categories of documents for which the Court left intact Defendants’ assertion of the deliberative process privilege. Of those 40, we are willing to focus on just the 8 categories of documents listed in paragraphs 17, 20, 28, 45, 54, 73, 76, and 85 of the Emrich affidavit. While we don’t concede that others may not be subject to production, from our initial review, it appears the documents listed in those paragraphs are most clearly not privileged and/or should be produced under the balancing test. We look forward to speaking with you on Thursday. Please let us know if our proposed 11am pacific time works on your end. 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: Hennessey, Laura K. (SEA)   Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 9:12 AM  To: 'Flentje, August (CIV)'   Cc: Julius, Derek (CIV) ; Murphy, Lindsay M. (CIV) ;  Brinkman, Andrew (CIV) ; Jentzer, Lyle (CIV) ; Kanter, Ethan  (CIV) ; Menkin, Jeff (CIV) ; Moore, Brendan T. (CIV)  ; Kipnis, Brian (USAWAW) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV)  ; Gellert, Nicholas (SEA) ; Perez, David A. (SEA)  ; Sameer Ahmed (SAhmed@ACLUSOCAL.ORG) ; Matt Adams  (matt@nwirp.org) ; Ruben, Lauren (DEN)   Subject: RE: Wagafe v. Trump ‐ Meet and Confer Next Week    All, Last week we discussed scheduling our next call for this Thursday, June 7. Would 2:00 p.m. eastern / 11:00 a.m. pacific work for your side? Best, 4