Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 11 12 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., 16 No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROTECTED BY THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE - (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – i 140586588.1 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 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 6 1 2 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF Plaintiffs reiterate their request for the documents listed in Paragraph 17 of the Emrich 3 affidavit (Dkt. # 174-3) because their need for the documents outweighs Defendants’ interest in 4 non-disclosure. See FTC v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). 5 Plaintiffs also repeat their request, joined by Defendants, that the Court review a sample of the 6 Paragraph 17 documents in camera. 7 Plaintiffs have explained in prior briefs that policy memoranda and manuals relating to 8 CARRP are highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that CARRP imposes unlawful, extra-statutory 9 hurdles on individuals applying for permanent residency or citizenship who are alleged to have an 10 “articulable link” to activities, entities, or individuals purportedly raising national security 11 concerns. See Dkt. # 152 at 8-10; id. # 180 at 3-5; id. # 194 at 3-4. In particular, even draft policy 12 memoranda and manuals may reveal the details of policies that have been enacted by USCIS. An 13 agency may not “avail itself of [the deliberative process privilege] to shield existing policy from 14 disclosure simply by describing the policy in a document that as a whole is predecisional, such as 15 a memo written in contemplation of a change in that very policy.” See Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office 16 of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 875-76 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Draft documents may also shed light 17 on the motivations behind CARRP. As Plaintiffs have elsewhere explained (e.g., Dkt. #180 at 3- 18 5), their allegations of discriminatory motive are not limited to their claims challenging the 19 Executive Orders (“EOs”). Rather, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that “CARRP labels 20 applicants national security concerns based on vague and overbroad criteria that often turn on 21 national origin or innocuous and lawful activities or associations.” Dkt. # 47 ¶ 76. Plaintiffs allege 22 that those activities and associations include involvement in Muslim communities, such as 23 donating to Muslim charities and traveling to Muslim-majority countries. See, e.g., id. ¶ 170. 24 Plaintiffs’ claim that CARRP erects extra-statutory obstacles for Muslim immigrants puts the 25 motivations behind CARRP at issue, as do Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants delay or deny 26 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE (No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1 140586588.1 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 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 6 1 applications subject to CARRP for pretextual reasons. See id. ¶¶ 84, 94. Moreover, Defendants err 2 in attempting to divorce CARRP from the EOs, as Plaintiffs allege that CARRP and the EOs are 3 part of the same unlawful extreme vetting policy. See id. ¶¶ 18, 26-28, 132-141. If evidence of 4 discriminatory motive exists, it may be reflected in documents discussing CARRP and how 5 USCIS has proposed that it change. 6 Plaintiffs have also explained why the remaining balancing factors weigh in favor of 7 disclosure. See Dkt. # 152 at 8-10; id. # 180 at 3-5; id. # 194 at 3-4. With respect to the 8 availability of other evidence, Defendants maintain that they “have already produced a significant 9 number of CARRP-related policy and guidance documents to Plaintiffs,” noting that they have 10 produced about 7,000 documents in this litigation and 3,600 pages of documents relating to 11 CARRP under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Dkt. # 198 at 8. But Plaintiffs 12 understand that many (if not all) of the documents released under FOIA have been reproduced in 13 this litigation. And Defendants acknowledge that they have asserted deliberative process privilege 14 claims for about 1,000 documents. See Dkt. # 198-2. More importantly, the absolute number of 15 documents produced is not particularly meaningful; given that CARRP is a vast government 16 program spanning about a decade, an extensive paper trail is to be expected. What matters is 17 whether the Paragraph 17 documents include important, relevant details about CARRP not 18 included in other documents. If so, Plaintiffs maintain that the documents should be produced. 19 With respect to the government’s role in the litigation, this Court has already found that 20 that factor weighs in favor of disclosure. See Dkt. # 189 at 7. Additionally, Plaintiffs have alleged 21 that Defendants engaged in misconduct by applying CARRP in a discriminatory manner. See 22 supra at 1-2. And the government may designate the documents as confidential under the 23 protective order entered in this case, thereby preventing their public disclosure. The balancing test 24 thus weighs in favor of disclosure to Plaintiffs. 25 In any event, Defendants do not object to “providing some or all of the Paragraph 17 26 documents to the Court for in camera review” and suggest that “it would be most efficient to Perkins Coie LLP 2 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 6 1 present the Court with a randomly-selected sample of 10 draft policy memoranda for review, 2 which would include approximately 200 pages.” Dkt. # 198 at 12. Plaintiffs support Defendants’ 3 proposal, particularly as Plaintiffs are “at a distinct disadvantage in attempting to controvert the 4 agency’s claims” of privilege because Plaintiffs “[do] not have access to the withheld materials.” 5 See Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs 6 therefore request that the Court review a sample of the Paragraph 17 documents in camera. 7 Plaintiffs further request that for the in camera review by Court, Defendants remove all redactions 8 and indicate by highlighting what information they would redact on the basis of other claimed 9 privileges. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED: July 13, 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/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 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 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/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. Perkins Coie LLP 3 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 6 1 Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com 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 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 Perkins Coie LLP 4 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 199 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below, I caused service of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROTECTED BY THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such filing to all counsel of record herein. DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Seattle, Washington. 8 9 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 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 140586588.1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000