Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3377 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director Office of Immigration Litigation WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department of Justice Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20442 Telephone: (202) 532-4824 Fax: (202) 616-8962 14 15 ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney 16 SAMUEL W. BETTWY 17 Assistant U.S. Attorney California Bar No. 94918 18 Office of the U.S. Attorney 19 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, CA 92101-8893 20 619-546-7125 21 619-546-7751 (fax) 22 Attorneys for Federal Respondents23 Defendants 24 25 26 27 28 Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for PetitionersPlaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3378 Page 2 of 20 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 MS. L, et al., Case No. 18cv428 DMS MDD 4 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 9 10 JOINT STATUS REPORT vs. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents-Defendants. 11 12 The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report on September 6, 2018, 13 14 in anticipation of the telephonic status conference scheduled for September 7, 2018, 15 at 1:00 p.m. PST. The parties submit this joint status report in accordance with the 16 Court’s instruction. 17 DEFENDANTS’ POSITIONS 18 I. 19 20 21 A. Update on Reunifications Defendants report on the current status of reunification with children ages 0 22 through 17 in the table below. The data presented in this Part reflects approximate 23 numbers maintained by ORR at least as of September 4, 2018. These numbers are 24 dynamic and continue to change as more reunifications or discharges occur. 25 26 Changes in format from last week’s reporting are explained below. 27 28 1 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3379 Page 3 of 20 Phase 1 Phase 2 (Under (5 and Total 5) above) 1 Description 2 Total number of possible children of potential class members originally identified Discharged Children 103 2,551 2,654 Total children discharged from ORR care: 84 2,097 2,181 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • Children discharged by being reunified with 72 1,905 separated parent • Children discharged under other appropriate circumstances (these include discharges to other 12 192 sponsors [such as situations where the child’s separated parent is not eligible for reunification] or children that turned 18) Children of Out-of-Class Parents Remaining in Care with ORR Children still in care where further review shows they 5 52 were not separated from parents by DHS: Children of In Class Parents Remaining in Care with ORR Children remaining in care where the adult associated with the child is not eligible for reunification or is not available for discharge at this time: 1,977 204 57 14 402 416 2 197 199 6 298 304 • Adult in other federal, state, or local custody: 0 9 9 19 • Adult red flag background check: 8 23 31 20 • Adult red flag case review – safety & well-being: 0 3 3 14 15 16 17 18 • Parent indicated desire against reunification (includes a significant number of parents outside the U.S., including indications conveyed through Steering Committee): • Adult presently outside the U.S.: 21 22 This report contains a new category, “Children of Out-of-Class Parents 23 24 Remaining in Care with ORR.” The “Children still in care where further review 25 shows they were not separated from parents by DHS” row under that category has 26 been moved from the “Children Remaining in ORR Care” category, where it had 27 28 2 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3380 Page 4 of 20 1 previously been reported. Compare 8/30 JSR at 2. This movement reflects that the 2 government has made a final determination that those cases did not constitute “adult 3 parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who 4 5 (1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and 6 (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS,” and therefore 7 the affected adults are not Ms. L class members. ECF. No. 82 at 17 (defining class). 8 9 Thus, while the group of individuals is largely the same as last week’s JSR (which 10 identified 52 cases), this categorization more accurately reflects their final status 11 with Defendants. Defendants intend to provide Plaintiffs a line list of the 57 such 12 13 cases on or before September 7, 2018. 14 15 Additionally, the separate category “Adult red flag case review – parentage” no longer appears because those cases are now subsumed in the 57 cases determined 16 17 not to be separations from parents by DHS. 18 19 The disposition and categorization of these such cases, combined with a significant number of children discharged from ORR care within the past week (24), 20 21 accounts for the significant difference in the total number between this week and last 22 of “Children remaining in care where the adult associated with the child is not 23 eligible for reunification or is not available for discharge at this time.” 24 25 26 27 28 3 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3381 Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 B. Reunification of Removed Class Members Defendants report on the current status of reunification of released and removed class members in the table below. The data presented in this Part reflects 4 5 approximate numbers maintained by ORR as of at least September 4, 2018. These 6 numbers are dynamic and continue to change as the reunification process moves 7 forward. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REUNIFICATION REPORTING METRIC PROCESS Children in ORR care with STARTING parents presently departed from POPULATION the U.S. NO. REPORTING PARTY 304 Def’s. PROCESS 1: Children with no “red flags” for Identify & Resolve safety or parentage Safety/Parentage Children with “red flags” for Concerns safety per background check Children with “red flags” for safety per case file review Children with “red flags” for parentage 300 Def’s. 4 Def’s. 0 Def’s. 0 Def’s. Children with parent contact information identified 304 Def’s. Children with no contact issues identified by either party 253 Def’s. & Pl’s. Children with contact issues identified by Plaintiffs, but not Defendants 47 Def’s. & Pl’s. PROCESS 2: Establish Contact with Parents in Country of Origin Children with no recent successful contact by either party 3 Def’s. Children with parent contact information provided to ACLU by Government Def’s. 303 26 27 28 4 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3382 Page 6 of 20 1 2 PROCESS 3: Determine Parental Intention for Minor Children for whom ACLU has communicated parental intent for 162 minor: Pl’s. 3 • Children whose parents waived reunification 109 Pl’s. 4 • Children whose parents chose reunification in country of origin 53 Pl’s. 5 6 7 8 9 10 PROCESS 4: Total children cleared Processes Resolve 1-3 with confirmed intent for 53 Immigration reunification in country of origin Status of Minors to Allow • Children in ORR care with Reunification orders of voluntary 20 departure Pl’s. Def’s. 11 12 Contact information has been identified for all of the 304 children currently 13 in ORR care with parents departed. For 253 of these children, neither Plaintiffs nor 14 Defendants have identified an issue with contacting the parent. As of September 4, 15 16 Plaintiffs had given Defendants various lists of alleged inoperative phone numbers. 17 See, e.g., 8/30 JSR at 9 (identifying 37 alleged inoperative phone numbers). On 18 August 29, Defendants provided information regarding 12 instances in which 19 20 children on Plaintiffs’ lists had been in recent contact with their parents. Defendants 21 investigated 50 further instances in which Plaintiffs had alleged inoperative phone 22 numbers. For 47 of the 50 cases, Defendants found that there was recent successful 23 24 contact between parent and child. Defendants were further able to identify updated 25 contact information in 30 of these cases, and intend to provide that information to 26 Plaintiffs in advance of tomorrow’s status conference. Three cases have had no 27 28 5 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3383 Page 7 of 20 1 recent successful contact by either party, and Defendants propose to meet and confer 2 further on those cases, and more generally regarding continued issues around alleged 3 inoperative phone numbers. 1 4 C. M.M.M. TRO Negotiations 5 6 7 The parties are meeting and conferring on the issues set forth in the Court’s August 17 order, ECF No. 196. The parties request that they be permitted an 8 9 extension until the September 7 status conference, at which point the parties can 10 update the Court on the meet-and-confer efforts. 11 D. Information Sharing 12 Plaintiffs continue to make numerous demands for data. As a general matter, 13 14 Defendants have been working to provide information requested by Plaintiffs, or to 15 meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the requested information. At last week’s 16 17 status conference, the Court urged Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with identifying 18 information that underlies the weekly numbers reported by Defendants. As 19 explained below, Defendants are already providing, or agree that they will provide, 20 21 a significant amount of information that underlies the weekly numbers reported in 22 23 24 1 Defendants further note that in certain instances, it is possible for contact to have been made between parent and child, but there is no updated information reflected 26 for the parent, when the parent was the one to initiate the call. Defendants will 27 continue to attempt to obtain parental contact information in those cases. 25 28 6 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3384 Page 8 of 20 1 Parts A and B above and that should give Plaintiffs the information that Defendants 2 understand them to be seeking. 3 For the weekly numbers reported in Part A, regarding overall reunifications, 4 5 Plaintiffs have stated that they believe that “Defendants compile and synthesize 6 Class member information in order to provide updated statistics to the Court every 7 week” and have asked Defendants to provide that information to Plaintiffs. As 8 9 Defendants have explained to Plaintiffs and the Court, Plaintiffs’ statement is 10 incorrect—that information is not “compile[d] and synthesize[d]” in the manner that 11 Plaintiffs assume. Nonetheless, Defendants are working to provide Plaintiffs with 12 13 information that would satisfy Plaintiffs’ desire to better understand Defendants’ 14 weekly reporting, as the Court suggested. 15 To start, Defendants clarify that much of the information that Plaintiffs are 16 17 seeking is contained in the data that Defendants have already provided to Plaintiffs. 18 To assist Plaintiffs, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with more detailed 19 explanations of what is contained in the data that Defendants have produced and in 20 21 the data that Defendants produce going forward. As an example, Defendants already 22 are providing weekly information regarding class members who have waived 23 reunification and regarding class members who are detained at ICE family 24 25 residential center. Defendants also recently have provided spreadsheets identifying 26 class members inside the United States who have and have not yet been reunified, 27 28 7 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3385 Page 9 of 20 1 and possible class members who are in other custody such as U.S. Marshals Service 2 or state criminal custody. Defendants are assessing whether any of those 3 spreadsheets already provided should be updated, and will provide Plaintiffs with 4 5 updated spreadsheets of the information already provided as appropriate. 6 7 Moreover, to provide further clarity into the numbers reported in Part A of Defendants’ weekly report, Defendants are willing to provide the following 8 9 additional information by Tuesday, September 11, 2018: 10 11 12 13 14 1. A list of children, by A#, in the “Total children discharged from ORR care” category; 2. A list of children, by A#, in the “Children discharged under other appropriate circumstances” category; and 3. A list of children, by A#, in the “Children of In Class Parents Remaining in Care with ORR” category. 15 16 In addition, Defendants will update the list of children in the “Total children 17 discharged from ORR care” category weekly by the Tuesday following each JSR 18 filing. 19 E. Criminal History Exclusions—Proposed Meet and Confer Process 20 21 22 With respect to parents who have not yet been reunified due to concerns related to criminal history, fitness, or danger, Defendants intend to make a final 23 24 determination regarding exclusions from eligibility for class membership or relief 25 by September 7, 2018, and intend to provide the basis for those exclusions to 26 Plaintiffs on that date. The parties can then meet and confer regarding each of those 27 28 8 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3386 Page 10 of 20 1 excluded individuals, and if they are unable to resolve any disagreements then 2 Plaintiffs can then bring the cases of those individuals who they believe were 3 wrongly excluded, either from class membership or from relief, to this Court for 4 5 resolution. Defendants understand that Plaintiffs agree to this proposed approach. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 II. PLAINTIFFS’ POSITIONS A. Steering Committee Progress Over the past week, the Steering Committee has made significant progress in contacting parents and confirming parent and child wishes with respect to reunifications. As of Tuesday, September 4, the Committee delivered final preferences for 147 2 parents to the Government, up from 43 reported a week ago. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Steering Committee member Justice in Motion continue their efforts to locate parents with non-operative phone numbers on-the-ground in Central America, with Plaintiffs’ counsel traveling to Guatemala this week to meet with class members concerning their cases. First, we report the status of our efforts based on the Government’s August 28 list of 322 children in ORR custody with removed parents. With respect to those children and parents, the Steering Committee’s progress in contacting parents 19 and delivering preferences to the Government is as follows: 20 Removed parents identified by the Government to 322 (reported to Steering 21 Steering Committee Committee on 22 8/28/2018) 23 24 25 2 This figure is based on the Government’s report of 322 children remaining 26 in ORR custody as of August 28. As noted infra, the Steering Committee has delivered the final preferences for 171 parents to the Government, of 413 children 27 originally reported by the Government to have been in ORR custody. 28 9 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3387 Page 11 of 20 • Parents for whom Committee has no phone number 17 Steering Committee called phone number for parent (using Government-provided number or number otherwise obtained by Steering Committee) 305 Steering Committee spoke to parent (either by phone or in person) 238 230 8 • Parents successfully reached through phone contact 9 • Parents found through outreach by NGOs 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 • Parents called and not reached (and not reached 67 through NGO efforts) 12 o Phone number inoperable or ineffective 28 13 o Contact efforts ongoing 39 14 Parents reached by phone or NGO outreach 238 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reunified: confirmed reunifications in home country 1 Parent’s preference with respect to reunification has been confirmed to match child’s 182 Preliminary indication of parent’s wishes with respect to reunification 25 Ongoing discussions with parent about reunification 30 Parent’s final preference has been communicated to government 147 As discussed further below, the Steering Committee is meeting and 26 conferring with the Government to clarify the bases for which children and parents 27 28 10 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3388 Page 12 of 20 1 are being removed from the Government’s operative list, and indeed has continued 2 to reach out to parents who were on the Government’s previous lists, but who have 3 been omitted from the August 28 list.3 4 Some of those efforts have identified parents and children who remain 5 separated, and have chosen to be reunified, and we have reported those family’s 6 decisions to the Government. Indeed, as of Tuesday, September 4, the Steering 7 Committee had reported on the preferences of an additional 24 families who were 8 on the Government’s earlier lists, but are not on the August 28 list. The Steering 9 Committee’s progress for this larger group of 413 is reported at the end of the 10 Steering Committee Report, so that the Court may compare progress in the past 11 week using the same baseline group. 12 Outstanding Data-Related Issues 13 14 The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 15 regarding data requested from the Government in order to ensure that all parents 16 are accounted for and reunified with their children imminently, if that is their wish. 17 The parties have made progress regarding a number of issues previously reported 18 to the Court, and the Steering Committee continues to hope that these issues can be 19 resolved informally. Removals from Government Lists 20 21 The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 22 regarding information explaining why parents and children have been removed 23 from or added to the lists of class members or children in ORR custody previously 24 The Government provided the first set of datasets on August 7th and 10th. Both lists combined included a total number of 412 children in ORR care. On th , the Government’s list included one additional child in ORR care with August 24 26 a removed parent, for a total of 413. The August 28 list includes only 322. 27 25 3 28 11 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3389 Page 13 of 20 1 produced by the Government. For the Steering Committee to effectively secure the 2 wishes of all class members, it needs the Government to provide for each prior list, 3 the following: • Particularized information for each child removed from each list, 4 including: 4 i. the child’s name and A#, and corresponding parent name and 5 parent A#; 6 ii. the basis for removing the child from the Government’s current 7 list; 8 iii. an explanation of additional information, if any, supporting the 9 10 basis for removal from the Government’s list; 11 iv. the name and contact information for the current custodian/sponsor of the child. 12 13 The Steering Committee needs this information to understand whether parents and 14 children have been properly removed from the Government’s previous lists, and 15 ascertain whether those parents are or are not still members of the Plaintiff Class. 16 The Steering Committee is hopeful that this will continue to be resolved informally 17 through the meet and confer process. 18 Inoperative/Ineffective/Lack of Phone Numbers 19 The Steering Committee continues to meet and confer with the Government 20 over the apparent discrepancy in the Steering Committee’s inability to contact 28 21 parents due to inoperative or ineffective phone numbers, as opposed to the 22 Government’s reported inability to contact only 4 parents (as reported by the 23 Government in last week’s JSR), as well as the 17 parents for whom the 24 Government has not provided a phone number. 5 The Steering Committee has 25 4 26 5 27 The Government maintains its lists based on children in ORR custody, not by removed parent. These figures are based on the 322 removed parents identified by the 28 12 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3390 Page 14 of 20 1 identified to the Government these 17 parents. We continue to meet and confer 2 with the Government to find ways for the Steering Committee to contact all 45 3 parents. 4 5 Simultaneous Reporting The Steering Committee also continues to meet and confer with the 6 Government to obtain updated class member information at the same time it is 7 provided to the Court. 8 9 Resolution Regarding MMM TRO Plaintiffs and the Steering Committee have also worked with counsel for the 10 MMM plaintiffs to ensure that the rights of class members and their children are 11 being appropriately protected while also removing any unnecessary barriers to 12 reunification, if that is what is desired by both parent and child. On September 4, 13 the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee and counsel for the MMM plaintiffs reached 14 an agreement that removes impediments to going forward with the reunifications 15 of parents and children who prefer to be reunified. The Government was advised 16 of this agreement on September 5, 2018. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Government last week. Including parents on the Government’s earlier lists, there are a total of 65 parents that the Steering Committee has been unable to reach. 28 13 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3391 Page 15 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Steering Committee Progress on Total Reported Parents/Children (413) Removed parents identified by the Government to Steering Committee (8/7/28, 8/10/18 and 8/24/18 lists) 413 • Parents for whom Committee has no phone number 32 Steering Committee called phone number for parent (using Government-provided number or number otherwise obtained by Steering Committee) 381 Steering Committee spoke to parent (either by phone or in person) 289 • Parents called and successfully reached 277 • Parents found through outreach by NGOs 12 • Parents called and not reached (and not reached through NGO efforts) 92 15 o Phone number inoperable or ineffective 37 16 o Contact efforts ongoing 55 17 18 19 Parents reached by phone or NGO outreach 289 Reunified: confirmed reunifications in home country 12 Parent’s preference with respect to reunification has been confirmed to match child’s 200 29 22 Preliminary indication of parent’s wishes with respect to reunification 23 Ongoing discussions with parent about reunification 48 20 21 24 25 Parent’s final preference has been communicated to government 171 26 27 28 14 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3392 Page 16 of 20 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 B. Reunification of Parents With Criminal Histories and Alleged to be Unfit The parties have been meeting and conferring over the last several weeks concerning parents who were denied reunification based on criminal convictions or allegations that they are unfit caretakers. The parties have preliminarily agreed on a process for addressing most of these cases, but as set forth below, there are a handful of cases that are more urgent and may require expedited attention. Defendants have informed Plaintiffs that they are engaging in an evaluation of all cases concerning parents with criminal histories or who are alleged to be unfit caretakers. Defendants have stated that they will complete that evaluation process by tomorrow, September 7, after which they will have final determinations on whether such parents will be reunified with their children. Plaintiffs’ understanding is that Defendants will then provide final lists to Plaintiffs, along with information concerning their reasons for denying reunification. Plaintiffs will evaluate that information and then raise any disputed cases to the Court’s attention. However, it is Plaintiffs’ understanding that the parties have already reached impasse on two cases involving parents, on which Plaintiffs may seek expedited resolution. Plaintiffs are particularly concerned about one family’s case involving a four-year-old child (who was three when he was first detained). The child’s mother was denied reunification based on an outstanding warrant from abroad, which alleges that she is a gang member. The mother denies this allegation, and at her immigration bond hearing, the immigration judge expressly found that this warrant was not sufficient evidence that the mother was a danger to the community. Defendants have nevertheless refused to reunify this family based on the parent’s alleged criminal history. This child is suffering greatly in detention and is at particular risk of grievous and irreparable harm. 26 27 28 15 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3393 Page 17 of 20 1 The second case involves a father who was denied reunification with his 2 two-year-old son. The father was initially denied reunification based on questions 3 concerning parentage, but Defendants’ more recent position is that the father is 4 ineligible for reunification because of his criminal history. The only criminal 5 history of which Plaintiffs are aware is the father’s guilty plea for assault from 6 2010, which has no bearing on his current dangerousness or ability to care for his 7 child. 8 Because of the youth of the children involved, and the fact that the parties 9 are already at impasse on them, Plaintiffs request that this Court set an expedited 10 briefing schedule to resolve whether they are entitled to reunification under the 11 standards set forth in this Court’s orders. The Court and the parties can address the 12 remaining cases after Plaintiffs receive Defendants’ final determinations on 13 September 7. 14 Finally, Plaintiffs may not have a complete list of all parents who were 15 denied reunification based on alleged criminal histories or abuse allegations. From 16 the various Class lists that Defendants have provided thus far, Plaintiffs have 17 identified approximately 50 parents who have been listed with criminal histories. 18 By contrast, Defendants’ status report of August 30 lists only 35 cases where 19 reunification was denied or delayed based on a “red flag background check,” 20 which presumably corresponds to criminal history. 21 Similarly, Plaintiffs have identified 15 parents across Defendants’ lists who 22 were not reunified based on allegations of abuse or unfitness. By contrast, 23 Defendants’ August 30 status report lists 18 cases where reunification was denied 24 or delayed based on “red flag – safety & well-being,” which presumably 25 corresponds to this group. 26 Plaintiffs expect that the information they receive from Defendants on 27 September 7 will clarify the precise number of cases at issue. 28 16 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3394 Page 18 of 20 1 2 C. Information Sharing Plaintiffs continue sending consolidated information requests concerning the 3 Class members’ reunification processes on Mondays and Thursdays of every week, 4 per Defendants’ requested timetable. 5 At last week’s status conference, the Court stated that it was appropriate for 6 Plaintiffs to receive identifying information for the cases described in the 7 Government’s weekly status reports so that, among other reasons, we can have 8 “real clarity and precision in keeping track of each and every person” and “avoid[] 9 the natural tendency to treat each person as a number.” 8/31/18 Transcript at 23. 10 The parties continue to meet and confer concerning the best mechanisms for 11 receiving that information. 12 Plaintiffs have other related information requests pending with Defendants, 13 such as information concerning which Class members are subject to final removal 14 orders. The parties continue to meet and confer concerning these topics. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3395 Page 19 of 20 1 DATED: September 6, 2018 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt* Judy Rabinovitz* Anand Balakrishnan* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T: (212) 549-2660 F: (212) 549-2654 lgelernt@aclu.org jrabinovitz@aclu.org abalakrishnan@aclu.org 11 12 13 14 15 16 Bardis Vakili (SBN 247783) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138-7131 T: (619) 398-4485 F: (619) 232-0036 bvakili@aclusandiego.org 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Stephen B. Kang (SBN 292280) Spencer E. Amdur (SBN 320069) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 343-1198 F: (415) 395-0950 skang@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 28 18 18cv428 DMS MDD Case 3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD Document 213 Filed 09/06/18 PageID.3396 Page 20 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General SCOTT G. STEWART Deputy Assistant Attorney General WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director WILLIAM C. SILVIS Assistant Director 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 /s/ Sarah B. Fabian SARAH B. FABIAN Senior Litigation Counsel NICOLE MURLEY Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 532-4824 (202) 616-8962 (facsimile) sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov ADAM L. BRAVERMAN United States Attorney SAMUEL W. BETTWY Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 18cv428 DMS MDD