Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 15 The Honorable James L. Robart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 13 Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00178JLR JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR 17 Plaintiffs, 18 19 20 21 v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 15 1 The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel (“Mot.”), ECF No. 166. 2 OVERVIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 3 “[T]he court encourage[d] the parties to work cooperatively” “and to expeditiously 4 complete the discovery authorized,” Order Granting Mot. Disc. & Denying Mot. Dismiss Without 5 Prejudice (“Disc. Order”) at 29, ECF No. 155, and the record confirms that Defendants have done 6 just that. Within a week of receiving Plaintiffs’ requests for production (“RFPs”), Defendants 7 informed Plaintiffs that their third RFP was problematic—it contained more than 30 distinct 8 subparts (virtually all of which sought data on a week-by-week basis over an approximately nine- 9 month span) and was in the nature of a series of interrogatories. See Keaney Decl. Exs. (“Keaney 10 Ex.”) 4, RFP No. 3 & 21 at 2, ECF No.167-2. Shortly thereafter, Defendants expressed 11 preliminary doubt that much of the requested information even existed in readily producible form. 12 See 8/14/18 e-mail, attached Ex. G. After this discussion, Plaintiffs served interrogatories seeking 13 much of the same data, which required more than 240 hours for Defendants to compile. See 14 Gauger Decl. ¶ 4, attached Ex. A. 15 Defendants also furthered the parties’ discussion by serving their objections to all of 16 Plaintiffs’ RFPs more than a week before the default deadline under the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure, allowing Plaintiffs early insight into Defendants’ interpretation and anticipated 18 response to their requests. See Keaney Ex. 22. And Defendants produced nearly 800 pages of 19 documents on September 14, 2018, a date to which the parties agreed and that provided Plaintiffs 20 more than a month for review before discovery closed. Even after that production, Defendants 21 continued to cooperate with Plaintiffs. Defendants re-reviewed their redactions, and ultimately 22 lifted a number of redactions in an attempt to narrow the issues in dispute, including by releasing 23 otherwise privileged, deliberative material as an accommodation to Plaintiffs. 10/17/18 e-mail, 24 attached Ex. N; see Keaney Ex. 33. 25 Defendants’ extensive good-faith efforts are not fairly documented in Plaintiffs’ motion, 26 which largely defers to a 14-page declaration by one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys that is replete with DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 15 1 improper argument. See Keaney Decl., ECF No. 167. Courts routinely recognize that such 2 argumentative declarations cannot be used to circumvent the page limits for a brief, e.g., King 3 Cty. v. Rasmussen, 299 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2002); Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. C15- 4 1483JLR, 2018 WL 3328418, at *10 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2018) (Robart, J.), appeal docketed, 5 No. 18-35791 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2018), and this Court should strike the argumentative portions 6 of the Keaney Declaration for effectively doing so here. See LCR 7(e)(4) & 37(a)(2).1 In all 7 events, the declaration is misleading. For example, Defendants did not “altogether refus[e] to 8 respond” to RFP No. 3, compare Keaney Decl. ¶ 6, with Keaney Ex. 21 at 2; Plaintiffs’ assertion 9 regarding Defendants’ e-mail from October 11, 2018, Keaney Decl. ¶ 18, ignores Defendants’ e- 10 mail from the day before, see Keaney Ex. 33; Defendants did not “refuse[] to justify” their 11 privilege claims, compare Keaney Decl. ¶ 34, with, e.g., Keaney Ex. 3; and Defendants did not 12 “refuse[]” to “re-examine their” law enforcement privilege claim, compare Keaney Decl. ¶ 34, 13 with Keaney Ex. 33 at 2.2 Should the Court so request, Defendants can further explain the parties’ 14 communications related to this limited, jurisdictional discovery. ARGUMENT 15 16 Plaintiffs’ Gamesmanship Cannot Justify Extending Discovery. I. 17 Plaintiffs had more than a month to review Defendants’ September 14, 2018, production 18 before the October 25, 2018, discovery deadline, and the parties communicated frequently in the 19 interim. 20 expeditiously complete the discovery,” Disc. Order at 29, Plaintiffs’ raise for the first time in their 21 motion an array of substantive concerns that they never shared with Defendants. Despite such ample opportunity for the parties to work “cooperatively” and “to Such 22 23 24 25 26 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel apparently created Exhibit 38, which seems to exist for no reason other than to reiterate their substantive argument. Plaintiffs’ inclusion of this argumentative declaration is all the more perplexing given that Defendants included adherence to the 12-page limit as a precondition to a stipulated briefing schedule rather than the oral motion practice that the Discovery Order contemplated. See 10/12/18 e-mail, attached Ex. L. 2 Plaintiffs’ description of “duplicative material” in Defendants’ productions, Keaney Decl. ¶ 12, is also curious because it fails to mention that Plaintiffs directed Defendants to produce “all duplicate Documents which were altered in any manner or added to after being duplicated and thus differ in some manner from the original,” Keaney Ex. 4 at 7, and further fails to acknowledge that RFP No. 2 requested documents “sufficient to show the categories of personnel” to which other documents had been distributed,” id. at 9. 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 2 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 15 1 gamesmanship reflects Plaintiffs’ failure to meaningfully meet and confer, and attempts to extend 2 discovery in an unduly burdensome and untimely manner. Plaintiffs’ Failed to Meaningfully Meet and Confer with Defendants. 3 A. 4 Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied over their failure to meet and confer. See LCR 37. 5 Especially where this Court has already directed the parties to work “cooperatively” and “to 6 expeditiously complete the discovery authorized,” Disc. Order at 29, “[a]n adequate meet-and- 7 confer . . . requires Parties to share their factual and legal basis for their positions” so that there 8 are “no surprises,” Pedroza v. PetSmart, Inc., No. ED CV 11-298 GHK, 2012 WL 9507910, at 9 *1 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2012). Yet, Plaintiffs raise a host of substantive concerns that they never 10 brought to Defendants’ attention. See Mot. at 3-8. Plaintiffs’ failure to do so is especially 11 puzzling given that they “propose[d]” to this Court that they would “confer with Defendants on 12 the need for additional discovery, such as depositions, as appropriate after the production of the 13 documents,” Pls.’ Cross-Mot. Limited Expedited Disc. (“Pls.’ Disc. Mot.”) at 6, ECF No. 121 14 (emphasis added), and Defendants previously informed Plaintiffs that it would be more productive 15 for Plaintiffs to identify specific documents associated with their concerns. 10/17/18 e-mail, 16 attached Ex. M. Plaintiffs’ actions present a disturbing trend whereby they run to this Court with 17 purported “concerns” to justify discovery, rather than confer with Defendants. See Defs.’ Resp. 18 JFS Pls.’ Mot. Reinstatement & Doe Pls.’ Mot. Join at 4, ECF No. 142 (“[H]ad the Plaintiffs 19 brought the two emails . . . to Defendants’ attention before their filings—consistent with the 20 parties’ agreement . . . and the stipulated order . . . to ‘meet and confer prior to the filing’ of any 21 additional motion . . .—Defendants could have informed them that these emails reflect nothing 22 more than an inadvertent mistake by a State employee who does not process refugee 23 applications.”). 24 Plaintiffs, however, never explained to Defendants the substantive concerns they now 25 raise stemming from: (a) USCIS guidance e-mails regarding “stamping,” see Mot. at 3-4 & 26 Keaney Exs. 7-10; (b) USCIS guidance regarding “Pipeline DHS Review,” see Mot. at 5 & DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 3 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 15 1 Keaney Ex. 12; (c) manual Security Advisory Opinion (“SAO”) checks, see Mot. at 6; (d) e-mails 2 discussing caps on SAO requests, see Mot. at 6 & Keaney Exs. 13-14; (e) a January 11, 2018, e- 3 mail describing changes made to the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System 4 (“WRAPS”) and inquiring about bona fide relationship (“BFR”) status, see Mot. at 6-7 & Keaney 5 Ex. 17; or (f) refugees considered “ready for departure” before the Agency Memo, but who have 6 not been admitted, see Mot. at 8. 7 Plaintiffs failed to meaningfully confer even with respect to the only document and data 8 piece they previously voiced concern about. When Plaintiffs previously brought to Defendants’ 9 attention a December 26, 2017, State Department e-mail, Mot. at 7 & Keaney Ex. 18, they 10 cryptically referred to an “apparent discrepancy” between that document and descriptions of it in 11 the record, see Keaney Ex. 37 at 4. That same day, Defendants responded that they saw no such 12 discrepancy, but that “[i]f you’re able to identify for us the ‘apparent discrepancy’ . . . we’d be 13 happy to look into it,” id. at 3. Plaintiffs declined to do so, instead simply confirming that the 14 parties were discussing the same documents and otherwise labelling their view as “seem[ingly] 15 incontestable,” id. at 2. And though Plaintiffs now renew their concern about the number of 16 admitted refugees from SAO countries, Mot. at 8, Plaintiffs never asked Defendants for a direct 17 explanation of admission numbers during discovery, despite voicing similar concerns to this Court 18 in requesting discovery in the first place, see Disc. Order at 12-13.3 19 This Court “has low tolerance for gamesmanship in discovery,” Elec. Mirror, LLC v. 20 Avalon Glass & Mirror Co., No. 16-0665-RAJ, 2018 WL 3862250, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 21 2018), and should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to extend discovery through last-minute surprises, see 22 id. (denying motion to compel where there was “no indication that the parties discussed the 23 24 25 26 Plaintiffs apparently think that their “areas” of “particular[] concern[]” are “apparent” from their Fourth Interrogatories and Rule 30(b)(6) notices, see Keaney Ex. 36 at 1. Not so. See Keaney Exs. 1 & 2. For example, Plaintiffs’ draft 30(b)(6) notice mentions “plac[ing] holds on SAO cases” among nine other broad topics purportedly reflecting actions to “implement the Agency Memo.” Keaney Ex. 2 at 8-9 (draft 30(b)(6) notice). Any suggestion that Defendants could distill Plaintiffs’ concerns from such general references after Defendants produced approximately 800 pages and a wealth of data, see Defs.’ Supp. Objs. & Written Resps. First & Interrogatories, attached Ex. F, is unrealistic, and at odds with the Court’s Order directing the parties to work “cooperatively to implement [its discovery] order and to expeditiously complete the discovery authorized.” Disc. Order at 29. 3 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 4 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 15 1 substance” of motion or potential resolution); Bonner v. Normandy Park, No. C07-962RSM, 2008 2 WL 351015, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2008) (“counsel should take all reasonable steps 3 necessary”). Plaintiffs’ approach is particularly wasteful of this Court’s resources, as Plaintiffs’ 4 concerns (which seem to derive from their apparent misunderstanding about the United States 5 Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”)) are easily addressed. See infra Part III.4 Plaintiffs’ Requests Impose an Undue Burden. 6 B. 7 Plaintiffs’ requested discovery imposes an undue burden disproportional “to the needs of 8 the case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness.” Disc. Order at 29 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). In response to Plaintiffs’ demands, Defendants have already 10 produced approximately 800 pages of documents, answered 21 burdensome interrogatories, and 11 expended more than 240 hours in the process. See Gauger Decl. ¶ 4; see also Defs.’ Supp. Objs. 12 & Written Resps. First & Third Interrogatories (“Defs.’ Resps.”), attached Ex. F. Far from 13 “narrowly craft[ing]” their requests, see Disc. Order at 29, Plaintiffs now seek two Rule 30(b)(6) 14 depositions about, inter alia, “actions taken to implement the Agency Memo” and “actions taken 15 to implement the” Court’s orders, Keaney Ex. 2 at 8-9. That effectively encompasses all of their 16 requested discovery, yet Plaintiffs are hardly working from a blank slate. But see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 26(b)(2)(C) (“the court must limit the . . . extent of discovery” if request “is unreasonably 18 cumulative or duplicative,” or the requester “had ample opportunity to obtain the information”). 19 Worse, Plaintiffs double down, insisting on two more duplicative fact depositions apparently 20 because of the individuals’ “personal knowledge of their efforts to comply with the injunction.” 21 Mot. at 10. Such fact testimony is particularly inappropriate before any 30(b)(6) deposition. Cf. 22 Baine v. Gen. Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 332, 335 (M.D. Ala. 1991) (holding deposition of 23 executive inappropriate where corporation had not been deposed). And Plaintiffs’ tardy Fourth 24 Interrogatories, see infra Part II.C., continue to demand that Defendants compile various data on 25 26 4 Any concerns Plaintiffs may voice in their reply brief regarding Part III only proves that these discussions should have happened before Plaintiffs filed their motion. Unfortunately, they evidently made a tactical decision to not do so, but that decision does not provide good cause for extending the now lapsed discovery deadline. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 5 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 15 1 a week-by-week basis over the course of approximately one year—the same burdensome routine 2 that Defendants already spent more than 240 hours trying to address, and would undermine State’s 3 work supporting refugee processing. See Gauger Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8-9. Plaintiffs’ Requests Are Not Timely. 4 C. 5 Plaintiffs’ supplemental requests also come too late. Plaintiffs did not serve their Fourth 6 Interrogatories until after the close of business on October 5, 2018 (the start of a federal holiday 7 weekend), when only 20 days remained before the close of discovery. But “for discovery to be 8 timely, a party must serve discovery at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline in order to 9 allow the other party sufficient time to respond.” Reed v. Morgan, No. 3:16-CV-05993-BHS- 10 DWC, 2017 WL 4408076, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017). Because Plaintiffs failed to do so 11 here, Defendants should not be compelled to answer. See, e.g., Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 12 1176, 1179 (10th Cir. 2003). Moreover, Plaintiffs acknowledge that their late requests stem from 13 “issues identified in the document production,” Mot. at 10; yet Plaintiffs first received those 14 documents on September 14, 2018, three full weeks before they served their interrogatories.5 15 Plaintiffs’ delay is particularly inexcusable given that Plaintiffs sought expedited discovery, see 16 Pls.’ Disc. Mot., and the docket shows them to be represented by more than 20 attorneys. 17 The deposition requests are also troublingly late. Plaintiffs did not request the fact 18 depositions until October 10, 2018, more than three weeks after they first received the documents, 19 and nearly nine months after the filing of the declarations that Plaintiffs cite to justify these 20 depositions. See ECF Nos. 114-1, 114-2. Similarly, Plaintiffs did not broach the possibility of a 21 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition until October 4, and even then indicated only that they “need[ed] at least 22 one 30(b)(6) deposition to answer certain questions either presented by the documents or not 23 answered by them.” 10/4/18 e-mail, attached Ex. H. Although Defendants asked the next day for 24 Plaintiffs to describe with “reasonable particularity the matters for examination,” as required by 25 26 5 Defendants’ productions after September 14, 2018, were limited to adjusting redactions on a relatively small number of documents, or producing a small amount of non-responsive information that Plaintiffs demanded after reviewing the September 14 production. Plaintiffs’ brief nowhere argues that those supplemental productions slowed their ability to serve their late interrogatories. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 6 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 15 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), see 10/5/18 e-mail, attached Ex. I, Plaintiffs did not serve their draft Rule 2 30(b)(6) notices until October 17, 2018—just five days before the thrice-extended motions 3 deadline. See Fernandez v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., No. 2:12-CV-00295-JCM, 2013 WL 4 438669, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2013) (holding not reasonable to notice 30(b)(6) deposition to 5 occur in eleven days during Christmas holiday season and two weeks before discovery closed); 6 Youssef v. FBI, No. CV 03-551 (CKK), 2009 WL 10692446, at *2 (D.D.C. June 26, 2009) 7 (blocking 30(b)(6) deposition because it was “both cumulative and otherwise unnecessary 8 (particularly given the late stage of discovery in which the information is sought)”).6 In sum, Plaintiffs’ late requests do not justify extending the “limited” discovery here. 9 10 II. Plaintiffs Cannot Compel Nonresponsive and Privileged Information. 11 Next, Plaintiffs needlessly demand that this Court order Defendants to publicly disclose 12 privileged information, see Mot. at 10-11, and further request nonresponsive information, 13 including sensitive personally identifiable information about individual refugee applicants, id. at 14 11-12. Both requests lack merit. 15 A. Plaintiffs’ Needless Fight About The Law Enforcement Privilege Fails. 16 Plaintiffs needlessly request that this Court determine whether the law enforcement 17 privilege shields information that tends to reveal the names of the countries on the SAO list (“SAO 18 Information”). 19 information to litigate this matter. See Doe v. Trump, 288 F. Supp. 3d 1045, 1058 n.6 (W.D. 20 Wash. 2017) (acknowledging Defendants’ position and statement that “the court could ‘rely on 21 Plaintiffs’ allegations for purposes of addressing the issues’ presented in” preliminary injunction 22 motions). Because the information is privileged and the Plaintiffs could rely on their allegations, 23 Defendants redacted a handful of documents that contained SAO Information. 24 25 26 This Court previously indicated that the Government need not reveal this 6 Plaintiffs stated on October 10, 2018, that they would seek testimony regarding “particular steps Defendants took to implement the suspensions and then to comply with preliminary injunction.” Keaney Ex. 32 at 2. Such vague and expansive language comes nowhere near the “reasonable particularity” required by the rule. See Carlson v. Sam’s W., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02882-MMD-GWF, 2018 WL 4094856, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 28, 2018) (describing test as whether request “places the party upon reasonable notice of what is called for or what is not”). DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 7 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 15 1 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs demanded that Defendants publicly release SAO Information, but 2 as an apparent compromise they also inquired whether Defendants would release such information 3 subject to a protective order. Keaney Ex. 27 at 5-6; 10/30/18 e-mail, attached Ex. O. Defendants 4 understood that inquiry to be in good faith, and after consulting with the necessary stakeholders, 5 agreed to Plaintiffs’ proposal in an attempt to work amicably and reduce the issues in dispute. 6 Yet Plaintiffs abruptly and without warning refused to enter into a protective order— 7 notwithstanding that it was their proposal—informing Defendants that they were “content for the 8 Court to rule” on the issue and declaring the information not privileged. 10/30/18 e-mail. 9 Plaintiffs’ protestations notwithstanding, the law enforcement privilege applies here. The 10 privilege, “designed to prevent disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public 11 interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement,” “bars disclosure of facts” and “prevents 12 disclosure of law enforcement techniques and procedures.” Chinn v. Blankenship, No. 09-5119 13 RJB, 2010 WL 11591399, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 2010) (citations and internal quotation 14 marks omitted). The Latta Declaration, attached as Exhibit B, explains how redacting this 15 information is necessary because it would otherwise inform “persons who would wish to defeat 16 or circumvent [the government’s] threat protection activities.” Id. at *7. Nor have Plaintiffs 17 shown that revealing such information is necessary for litigating the sole mootness issue pending 18 before the Court, given that they can rely on their allegations. See Doe, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 1058 19 n.6. And Plaintiffs provide no authority for their belief that because they (and others) purportedly 20 published this information, they can unilaterally force the Government to publicly reveal sensitive 21 information. See ACLU v. DoD, 628 F.3d 612, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“the specific information 22 sought by the plaintiff must already be in the public domain by official disclosure” to defeat FOIA 23 exemptions).7 The privilege applies here; at most, the production of SAO Information should be 24 subject to the protective order to which Defendants agreed in good faith to stipulate. 25 26 7 In Buzzfeed v. DOJ, 318 F. Supp. 3d 347 355, 363-64 (D.D.C. 2018), the Court identified “unprecedented public disclosures” by the Government and public officials that were “far greater in magnitude” than the three discrete questions at issue. And in Doe v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-07-1901-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 8 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 15 1 B. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled To Discovery of Nonresponsive Information. 2 In this limited jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs are not entitled to refugee applicants’ 3 personal information when they give no reason to conclude that information pertains to parties in 4 this action. Such information is neither responsive to Plaintiffs’ first RFP nor authorized by the 5 Court. RFP No. 1 seeks “policies, directives, instructions, guidelines, guidance, advisals, cables, 6 notices, training, memoranda and other similar Documents” relating to SAO and following-to- 7 join (“FTJ”) refugee processing and admissions, “including those relating to,” inter alia, 8 “[i]mplementation of the Agency Memo” and “[c]ompliance with th[is] Court’s order[s].” See 9 Keaney Ex. 4 at 8-9 (bold font removed). Such vague language should be read in light of both 10 the Court’s Discovery Order, which “specifically limits Plaintiffs to requesting documents within 11 . . . four categories,” Disc. Order at 29,8 and the sole jurisdictional issue pending before the Court. 12 Accordingly, Defendants reasonably interpreted the request as seeking “final, formal guidance 13 documents concerning the processing of SAO or [FTJ] refugee applicants, whether promulgated 14 through e-mail or in some other fashion,” Keaney Ex. 22 at 11. 15 Policy guidance does not include individual refugee applicant information, and such 16 information does not fall within the discovery boundaries set by this Court. See Disc. Order at 17 29. Though Plaintiffs think that nonresponsive text included in or appended to a potentially 18 responsive document must be produced absent a privilege, many courts disagree. See, e.g., Spano 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 166925, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2009), the concern was not that the parties would become aware of the information, “but rather that the parties may disclose this information to non-parties,” and thus the Court ordered the information produced “subject to a protective order.” 8 The Court confined Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to the following categories: (1) “Documents relating to the implementation of the Agency Memo as it relates to follow-to-join refugees and refugees who are nationals of (and stateless persons who last habitually resided in) the SAO countries”; (2) “Documents relating to actions taken by Defendants to comply with this Court’s preliminary injunction dated December 23, 2017 and order denying Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal”; (3) “Documents relating to actions taken by Defendants as a result of the end of the 90-day review for SAO countries and as a result of the implementation of the additional vetting procedures for follow-to-join refugees”; and (4) “Policy documents and data relating to the processing of refugee applications and admission of refugees to the United States from October 23, 2017 to the date of production.” Disc. Order at 28-29. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 9 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 15 1 v. Boeing Co., No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW, 2008 WL 1774460, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2008) 2 (“[C]ourts have found redaction appropriate where the information redacted was not relevant.”).9 3 If ever there were a case where redaction or withholding of nonresponsive information is 4 appropriate, it is this one. Here, the Court “limited” discovery to “issues pertaining to mootness,” 5 Disc. Order at 29; yet Plaintiffs demand a fishing expedition that invades individuals’ privacy, 6 while Defendants maintain that no subject-matter jurisdiction exists. The Court likewise should 7 deny Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of other documents (such as general USRAP 8 guidance documents not specific to SAO or FTJ refugee processing) that may have been 9 referenced in or attached to responsive documents but that do not fall within the categories of 10 11 discovery that RFP No. 1 requests and (more importantly) that the Court authorized.10 Plaintiffs’ Belated Concerns Do Not Justify Extending Discovery. III. 12 Defendants already produced ample evidence showing compliance with this Court’s 13 Orders. E.g., Defs.’ Resps. at 10-11 & Exs. B & C (increasing number of prescreen interviews 14 and security checks for refugees requiring SAO). Plaintiffs’ purported concerns, about which 15 they declined to meet-and-confer, do not suggest otherwise and do not justify extending 16 discovery. Although Plaintiffs worry that USCIS did not “stamp” SAO cases approved after the 17 Court’s injunction, see Mot. at 3-4, USCIS started approving cases when individuals were in the 18 stamping queue, see Ruppel Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, attached Ex. E; see also id. ¶ 7 (explaining rationale 19 behind e-mails cited by Plaintiffs). And Plaintiffs’ attack on Pipeline DHS Review—which is 20 designed to ensure that cases requiring an SAO satisfy new protocols implemented after the 120- 21 day and 90-day reviews, see id. ¶ 10—is beyond this lawsuit, as framed by the operative 22 23 24 25 26 9 See also, e.g., Talarigo v. Precision Airmotive Corp., No. 06-2885, 2007 WL 3132818, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2007) (because a litigant “is not entitled to look through all possibly interesting material, deferring the issue of relevance,” responding party could “redact out irrelevant portions of discoverable documents”); accord In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2599, 2016 WL 1460143, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016); Impact, LLC v. United Rentals, Inc., No. 4:08CV00430 JLH, 2009 WL 413713, at *9 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 18, 2009); Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, No. 03Civ.5560(RMB)(HBP), 2007 WL 473726, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2007). 10 If the Court harbors any doubt about the propriety of Defendants’ redactions and withholdings, the Court should review the documents in camera rather than granting outright Plaintiffs’ unwarranted demand for production. E.g., Beauchem v. Rockford Prods. Corp., No. 01 C 50134, 2002 WL 1870050, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2002). DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 10 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 15 1 complaints. See Doe, 288 F. Supp. 3d at 1073 (explaining Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Agency 2 Memo provisions that “prohibit the admission of refugees from SAO countries and impede the 3 processing of their refugee applications for 90–days”). 4 Plaintiffs also question “monthly quota[s] on the number of SAO checks,” Mot. at 6, but 5 the very documents they cite explain the underlying rationale—they are “[b]ased on the volume 6 of cases that require an SAO, coupled with vetting partner capacity,” and “ensure that the most 7 time sensitive cases”—such as those with “medical needs, security/protection concerns, [or] 8 minors”—“are processed as quickly as possible,” Keaney Ex. 13 at 1; Keaney Ex. 14 at 1 9 (adjusting cap “[d]ue to an increasing SAO backlog”); see also Ingraham Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, attached 10 Ex. C (explaining adjustment). And Plaintiffs wrongly state that no SAO checks were requested 11 for FTJ refugees outside of RSCs in Kenya and Thailand, Mot. at 6 n.7. In fact, such checks were 12 consistently requested. See. Defs.’ Resps. at 11 & Ex. D. 13 Next, Plaintiffs worry that Defendants may not have started processing soon enough 14 because of needed updates to WRAPS. See Mot. at 6 & Keaney Ex. 17. But the time needed to 15 add BFR to WRAPS did not delay the State Department’s processing efforts generally, and the 16 technical upgrade to WRAPS impacted only the time needed for the SAO requests, because they 17 could not be requested automatically through WRAPS. See Ingraham Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13. As 18 Defendants made known last February, SAO checks were conducted manually during this time 19 because WRAPS needed technical changes to accommodate security enhancements adopted after 20 the 120-day review, Ingraham Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 120-1, and the first manual SAO requests 21 were submitted shortly after New Year’s Day, see Ingraham Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs’ further 22 suggestion that Defendants should have “restor[ed] the BFR information that was collected” in 23 response to “the Supreme Court’s partial stay of Hawaii[],” Mot. at 6, overlooks that courts 24 construed the term differently, and that difference required proper analysis and testing to ensure 25 accuracy, Ingraham Decl. ¶ 13. 26 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 11 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 13 of 15 1 Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding circuit rides are also misplaced. Pointing to a December 2 26, 2017 e-mail inquiring about “compelling expedite cases . . . that should be interviewed due to 3 protection/medical issues,” Mot. at 7 & Keaney Ex. 18 at 1, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants 4 sought “a far narrower universe” of refugees from SAO countries for Q2 circuit rides than their 5 past representation that State “inquire[d] whether any SAO nationals might be ready for 6 interviews.” Mot. at 7 (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). But had 7 Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their apparently cramped understanding of the word “any,” see 8 supra Part I.A, Defendants could have explained to them that “[a]n important part of the process 9 of managing the [USRAP] is to set priorities on the processing of refugee applications,” and that 10 “[i]t is standard and long-term practice” to consider an individual’s vulnerability such as urgent 11 medical needs or a lack of protection to be “the most important criterion.” Smith Decl. ¶ 4, 12 attached Ex. D. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ own exhibit reflects that fact. See Keaney Ex. 13 at 1 13 (determining which SAOs to request “based on,” inter alia, “medical needs, security/protection 14 concerns”). And though Plaintiffs worry about BFR inquiries for candidates for the Agency 15 Memo’s case-by-case exception, Mot. at 7, such inquiries were to ensure compliance with this 16 Court’s Order, as those individuals no longer needed such an exception, see Smith Decl. ¶ 7. CONCLUSION 17 18 The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Defendants regretfully add that, in 19 view of the foregoing, the comity between the parties has apparently broken down, a concern 20 Defendants previously expressed to Plaintiffs, see 10/10/18 e-mail, attached Ex. J; accord 21 10/11/12 e-mail, attached Ex. K, and which subsequent events have done nothing to assuage. 22 DATED: November 5, 2018 23 24 25 26 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ Kevin Snell DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 12 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 14 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 DANIEL BENSING KEVIN SNELL JOSEPH C. DUGAN Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Fax: (202) 616-8460 Email: kevin.snell@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 13 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169 Filed 11/05/18 Page 15 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 I certify that on November 5, 2018, a copy of the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 5 6 7 8 DATED this 5th day of November, 2018. /s/ Kevin Snell KEVIN SNELL 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL - 14 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 7 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit A Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 7 The Henorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOHN DOE, et a1., Plaintiffs, V. DONALD TRUMP, et Defendants. JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et a1., Plaintiffs, V. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action o. Civil Action No. 2:17wcv-01707JLR DECLARATION OF KELLY A. GAU GER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) I, Kelly A. Gauger, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C-. 1746, hereby state and depose as follews: DECLARATION OF KELLY A. I Doe. er of. v. Trump, at 31., No. (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 Street, NW Washington, DC 211630 Jewish Famifv Service ofSeaIrfe. em}. v. Trump. amt. No. 2:12-cv-01207 (11,121 {10313350934 xeecaacw the Acting Director of the Admissions Of?ce of the Bureau of Population, Re?igees, . I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants? opposition to Plaintiffs? Joint Motion . I was informed of this discovery request on or about July 30, 2018. Our counsel in the Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 7 and Migration of the United States Department of State. I have served as Acting Director of PRWA since 2017, and I have served as Deputy Director of since 2011. In my current position, [oversee the Department of State?s ?inctions in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), conducted under the authority of the Refugee Act of 1980. to Compel. In my capacity as Acting Director of PRWA, I am involved in the facilitation of search and production of documents and data responsive to Plaintiffs? discovery requests after the Court?s July 27, 2018, discovery order. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge and information made available to me in the course of carrying out my duties and responsibilities. Of?ce of the Legal Adviser, Human Rights and Refugees has the primary responsibility within the Department of State for overseeing the search and production tasks to respond to the discovery requests. There are no other personnel in Speci?cally assigned to assist in the search and production, and we currently lack capacity to assign dedicated personnel to this work. PEMA has not previously needed to conduct docurnent searches and production for litigation purposes, aside from an ongoing discovery prodess that recently began infanother refugee case. Cuirently PRMIA has only 20 personnel in its of?ce- Moreover, PRMIA is already below regular staffing levels due to the Department of State?s hiring freeze, which was in place from January 21, 2017 to May 15, 2018. DECLARATION or Kauair a. oauesn- 2 DEPARTMENT OWUSTICE HUG Street, Dee, at at. v. Trump. er al, No. (HR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Famllv Service ofSeai?tle. a at v. Tmmv. mi. No. one Producing information in response to Plaintiffs? discovery requests imposed signi?cant . In responding to Plaintiffs? request for production, there were several identi?ed of?cers Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 7 burdens on Responses to the data requests were handled by the Refugee Processing Center (RPC), a component of that administers the Worldwide Re?lgee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS), which is the database that facilitates processing of re?igee applicants. The data requests required the services of a team of RPC contractors. This team had to write the pr0per search request in order to ensure that the RPC would provide data responsive to Plaintiffs? requests. Once the search was undertaken, careful review of the search results was required to ensure that the correct data was retrieved. The Director of the RPC interacted continuously with the team to answer questions and oversee the search and its results to ensure accuracy. Collectively, the contractors spent 228 hours gathering data responsive to the Plaintiffs? requests, and the RPC Director expended approximately 15 hours conducting her review and assisting the contractors. The time used for the data response detracted from other priorities of the RPC to support secure, effective, and ef?cient refugee processing. I am advised that the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State (CA) also handled some of the data requests and these ?gures do not re?ect any efforts by CA. who possessed responsive documents and undertook the searches needed for the range of documents sought by Plaintiffs? requests for production. Colleptively, this search effort required approximately 6 hours, not including the time needed to review and process the documents collected, see paragraph 6. I am advised that the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of State (CA) also possessed responsive documents and made searches, and these ?gures do not re?ect any efforts by CA. 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ol- KELLY A. 3 11001. NW Doe, et al. v. Trump, e1 01., No. Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Fam?v Serwce orSean/e. eta]. v. Trumn. e! 01.. No. 2:17-cv-01707 (11.10 ?02) ?5?09? Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 7 6. I am advised that has only one attorney assigned to handle legal matters relating to the USRAP and who was available to perform the review of the documents and data that have been produced to date. Like UHRR has not previously needed to conduct reviews and redactions of document production for litigation purposes. This attorney has spent a signi?cant amount of time since the July 27, 2018 discovery order producing, reviewing, and redacting documents, as well as drafting privilege log entries for the documents produced to date, including signi?cant a?erhours and weekend work. These efforts have diverted resources from the attorney?s ability to provide legal services to the USRAP. Should additional discovery be undertaken, it is unknown whethera request for additional resources in the Of?ce of the Legal Adviser may materialize. Like PRMJA, the Of?ce of the Legal Adviser is below regular staf?ng levels due to the Department of State?s hiring freeze. . PRMIA is also currently undertaking searches and producing documents in response to discovery requests in Doe er'elsen, no. (N. D. Cal), and LII-1R3. is reviewing these documents. This means that and limited resources are also now devoted to meeting deadlines in this other case, which has already required a motion to extend to meet those deadlines. There is little or no capacity to undertake further discovery in this case at the current time. . With the recent beginning of Fiscal Year 2019, including the setting of a new refugee i r' i ceiling in Presidential Determination 2019-01, there are numerous activities that need to be undertaken to implement the Fiscal Year 2019 Refugee Resettlement Program. For example, needs to enter into new or revised cooperative agreements with numerous implementing partners overseas, which run the Resettlement 1 DE. DE El?k?T OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF KELLY A. GAUGER 4 1100 Street, NW Doe. a: at. v. Trump, e: at, No. 2: I law?001 l3 (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Familv Service ofSeartle. at al. v. Tmmn. e! at. No. 2:1T?cv?0i T07 Tel: (201) 3050924 Plaintiffs? fourth set of interrogatories request additional data and information from the Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 7 8111313011 Centers, and in the United States, which run the domestic resettlement program. Having to respond to further discovery requests during this time period would signi?cantly and adversely impact ability to carry out necessary functions to administer the USRAP. WRAPS system, including personally identi?able information about individual refugee applicants. Provision of this additional information would impose signi?cant burdens on RPC. The time required to extract this additional information from WRAPS would further undermine the efforts in completing operations, technical and reporting work to support the processing of refugees. Completing this additional discovery within 35 days following any court order, as Plaintiffs have requested, would continue to distract the agency from its core refugee processing activities. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 901,3 1 2018. all? or KELLY A. GAUGER- DEMRTMEW 0F 1100 Street, NW Doe. er at. v. Tmmp, at at, No. 2: I Washing-ion, DC 29530 Jewish ofSeam'e. e! of. v. Tmmn. or all- No. Tel: {202213050924 Case Document 169-1 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 7 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 7 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit B Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 7 The Honorable James L. Robart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 JOHN DOE, et al., 11 12 13 Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00178JLR Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., 17 18 19 Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., 20 Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01707JLR DECLARATION OF J. NEAL LATTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) 21 22 23 24 25 26 I, J. Neal Latta, for my Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby state and depose as follows: DECLARATION OF J. LATTA - 1 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 7 1 1. I am the Senior Director of the Screening Coordination Office in the Office of Strategy, 2 Policy, and Plans within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I have held this 3 position since 2012. In my current position, my office is responsible for the 4 DHS/Department of State Security Advisory Opinion Requirements review board (SAO 5 RRB). I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 6 Joint Motion to Compel. The statements made herein are based on my personal 7 knowledge and information made available to me in the course of carrying out my duties 8 and responsibilities in the position described above. 9 2. I submit this declaration to formally assert the law enforcement privilege on behalf of 10 DHS over information that, if revealed, could lead to the identification of the countries 11 that trigger a Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) for refugees, as sought by Plaintiffs’ 12 Joint Motion to Compel. I have been delegated the authority of the Secretary of 13 Homeland Security to assert the law enforcement privilege on behalf of DHS. I have 14 personally reviewed the documents and redactions regarding which Plaintiffs seek 15 compelled disclosure. 16 3. As discussed more fully below, the Government disclosing and publicly acknowledging 17 this information could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law and to 18 cause harm to law enforcement and counterterrorism investigations, as disclosure would 19 undermine the Department’s security vetting efforts. 20 4. The SAO is a Department of State-initiated biographic check that federal law 21 enforcement and intelligence community partners conduct. The Resettlement Support 22 Center initiates SAO biographic checks for the refugee applicants from certain groups 23 and nationalities designated by the U.S. government as requiring this in-depth check. 24 SAO responses must be completed and any derogatory information resolved before U.S. 25 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approve the refugee application. 26 DECLARATION OF J. LATTA - 2 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 7 1 5. DHS policies for the security vetting of applicants for refugee resettlement in the United 2 States include an in-depth threat assessment of nationals of, and stateless persons who 3 last habitually resided in, an SAO country. 4 6. Refugee vetting is a significant challenge that requires prioritization of resources in 5 targeted areas of inquiry. SAO determinations reflect the Government’s assessment as 6 to which countries present a heightened security risk, and manifest DHS’s efforts to 7 focus vetting resources where they are most needed. 8 9 7. As with any immigration program, individuals seeking to conceal former criminal conduct, national security concerns, or other ineligibilities, and/or individuals who seek 10 to do harm to the nation or engage in criminal activities within the United States, may 11 seek to circumvent known processes to avoid detection. 12 8. Those seeking to exploit our immigration system, and in particular those with intent to 13 do harm to the nation by criminal means, could more easily do so should we release 14 additional, sensitive details regarding screening procedures. In the refugee context, we 15 have seen individuals claim a false identity—and even fraudulently claim to be another 16 nationality—in order to obtain legal status. 17 9. USCIS officers work diligently to determine issues related to identity and nationality. 18 The Government revealing and publicly acknowledging the specific nature of security 19 checks, including whether or how they are conducted with respect to certain groups, 20 provides easy access to accurate, sensitive, and strategic government information to 21 nefarious actors, by informing them of where and how vetting resources are prioritized 22 and how screening is conducted. 23 10. Due to the circumstances in which refugees are sometimes forced to leave their home 24 countries or flee, refugees with valid claims are perhaps more likely than other aliens to 25 find themselves without identity documents. Moreover, while other aliens can turn to the 26 authorities of their countries of origin for help in obtaining documents, refugees may not DECLARATION OF J. LATTA - 3 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 7 1 have this option. Hence, individuals in the refugee context are not required to provide 2 identity documentation due to the nature of refugee flight. 3 11. For these reasons, the Government disclosing and publicly acknowledging the identities 4 of the SAO countries—or information from which those identities may be inferred—is 5 extremely problematic from a law enforcement perspective. Among other concerns, a 6 nefarious actor could simply claim to be a national of another country who lost 7 documentation or had to flee without documentation in order to avoid the SAO security 8 check requirement. 9 12. If DHS or U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) partners are not able to identify 10 all relevant national security issues, due to such concealment, our ability to identify 11 applicants who pose a national security risk will be inherently limited, and our law 12 enforcement interests therefore compromised. 13 13. Moreover, the Government revealing and publicly acknowledging the identities of SAO 14 countries, and potentially changes to the list of SAO countries over time, could have 15 significant impacts on foreign affairs and law-enforcement liaison relationships with 16 foreign nations and law enforcement counterpart entities from those nations. 17 14. To maintain effective security vetting of applicants for refugee resettlement in the United 18 States, details about how refugee vetting is conducted, including information that could 19 reveal the names of SAO countries, are properly categorized as law enforcement 20 privileged information and should not be disclosed and publicly acknowledged by the 21 Government. 22 15. Given the sensitivities of the information and the national security and law enforcement 23 harms at stake, the Government’s release and public acknowledgement of information 24 that could reveal the names of SAO countries, even under a general protective order, 25 poses too great a risk to national security and U.S. law enforcement interests. In the 26 event the Court orders the release of information tending to reveal the identities of the DECLARATION OF J. LATTA - 4 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 7 1 SAO countries, the release should be for attorney’s eyes only and for the limited purpose 2 of litigating claims and defenses in this lawsuit. I am advised that Department of Justice 3 litigation counsel have offered to disclose SAO country information in this manner, and 4 DHS does not object to this limited, protected form of disclosure. 5 16. For the foregoing reasons, and based upon my personal consideration of the matter, 6 including the documents placed at issue by Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel, I have 7 concluded that Government disclosure and public acknowledgement of the information 8 described in this declaration could be expected to risk circumvention of the law and 9 cause harm to national security. Thus, information that tends to reveal the identity of the 10 SAO countries is properly protected from disclosure by the law enforcement privilege. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF J. LATTA - 5 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 305-0924 Case Document 169-2 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on He ,2018. LATTA ashington, D.C. DECLARATION OF J, LATTA 6 US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 Street NW Doe, et v. Hump, e! 01., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Family Service of Seattle, 61 v. Trump, et al., No. (JLR) Ta: (202) 305'0924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 9 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit C Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOHN DOE, et 31., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et a1., Defendants. JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, at 211., Defendants. I, Hilary E. Ingraham, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby state and depose as follows: DECLARATION OF HILARY E. INGRAHAM - 1 Dee. emf. v. Trump. eral, Case No. ULR) The Honorable James L. Rebart Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00 17 SJ LR Civil Action No. DECLARATION OF HILARY E. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAIN JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Il?? I. Street NW Washingmn. DC HIE-30 Jewish Famay Service quam?e. at at. v. Trump. e: at, Case Ne. (JLR) Ta? {303} 3'15-0934 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 9 1. I am the Director of the Refugee Processing Center within the Admissions Of?ce of the Bureau of Pepulation, Refugees, and Migration of the United States Department of State. I have served in this position since April 2014. In my current position, I am reSponsible for managing the Worldwide Re?igee Admissions Processing System which is the worldwide database used for processing refugees applying for resettlement to the United States. I submit this declaration in support of Defendants? opposition to Plaintiffs? Joint Motion to Compel. The statements made herein are based on my personal lmowledge and information made available to me in the course of carrying out my duties and responsibilities as RPC Director. 2. The Joint Motion to Compel states that during the 90-day Security Advisory Opinion review prescribed by the October 23, 2017, Joint Memorandum to the President titled ?Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities? (?Agency Memo?), Defendants instructed RSCs not to request any SAO checks. This instruction was a consequence of the lZO-day review pursuant to Executive Order 13,780, which resulted in the requirement described in the Agency Memo to collect additional data from all refugee applicants to enhance the effectiveness of biographic security checks. Speci?cally, the applicant must now provide phone numbers email addresses and address information going back ten (10) years instead of ?ve (5) years for all case members, and an address must be collected for all places where a case member lived for 30 days or longer. The applicant must also provide the current phone number and email address for all members on the Family Tree for the applicant and any case member. . . LLS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLARATION OF HILARY L. INGRAI 2 lml] Street NW Doe. e! v. Trump, 8! Case Washington, DC 211530 Jewish Famvy Service grams. er at. v. Hump. at at, Case No. (ml 3'51?? 3. To implement these additional security enhancements, the Government was required to DECLARATION OF HILARY E. INGRAHAM - 3 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 9 make technical changes to WRAPS, as well as other US. Government systems, to enable them to transmit and receive the additional data through an automated request in WRAPS that is sent to the relevant interagency vetting partners that conduct SAO reviews. This process requires the WRAPS system to interface through a Bureau of Consular Affairs system with the systems of vetting partners. In other words, information ?ows from WRAPS through the CA system and to the vetting partners? systems. . Immediately after October 24, 2017', the RFC began working with CA and the vetting partners to make the necessary technical changes in both WRAPS and the vetting partners? computer systems. The target date for deployment across all agencies to allow for the automated SAO requests to resume was January 19, 2018. . The technical updates to WRAPS were planned to coincide with the Agency Memo?s 90- day deprioritization of SAD refugee applicants. The decision was made at the beginning of that period to cease automated SAO requests while WRAPS was being updated so that automated requests could resume at the end of the 90-day period. During this 90-day period, the requests for any SAO national that the Department of Homeland Security approved to move forward under the case-by-case process set out in the Agency Memo were to be handled through an approach that the RFC developed with the partner vetting agencies to submit SAOs manually. This alternative was developed to process SAOs in the event refugees would be considered by the DHS for case-by-case admission under the Agency Memo?s provisions. Given the cumbersome process required to conduct the manual approach for all agencies, State decided to only send SAC requests fer individuals approved to move forward with a case?by-case exception while DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 Street NW Doe. et al. v. Trump, e: at, Case No. (11R) Washington, Jewish thily Service of?'eanle. er of. v. Trump, at at, Case No. 2:1 (JLR) Tel: (102] 305.0924 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 9 the Agency Memo was in effect. During the time period from the Agency Memo until entry of 'the Court?s preliminary injunction Order, however, no cases were approved for a case-by-case exception and therefore no SAOs were requested. 6. When the preliminary injunction Order was issued on December 23, 2017, the agencies were in the middle of the process to update the systems to handle the increased volume of data. As explained above, the RPC could not submit automated SAO requests through WRAPS at the same time that the agencies were performing the necessary technical changes to WRAPS and partner systems because these requests would not include all of the data required for vetting purposes subsequent to the 120-day review period. Only the manual approach could be used during this period to process any SAO requests for refugees who were SAO nationals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S- person or entity. The ?rst 17 SAO requests were submitted manually on January 3, 2018. Requests were not sent earlier because of staf?ng shortages at the RPC, as well at the other agencies involved in the manual submission approach, in light of the fact that the preliminary injunction was issued on a holiday weekend and the following week was a shortened holiday week. More manual SAO submissions followed after January 3, in furtherance of State Department?s compliance with the injunction. 7. During the time period extending from entry of the preliminary injunction Order until the automated system was fully online and functioning properly, the number of manual submissions that could be requested was very low because the manual process was extremely time consuming and resource intensive. It relied on personnel across the State Department and from vetting agencies to pull, post, and review information manually. Manual processing also increased the likelihood of clerical and other human errors, could . . . - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE haemam ION or HILARY tumour-m - 4 mm Street NW Doe, er al'. v. Trump, e! (If, Case No. Washington, DC 2(1530 Jewry}: rams}: Service ry?Seaer, e: of. v. Tmmp. at of, Case No. [201) 3050924 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 9 not scale close to the level of automated processing, and took staff away from and further impeded progress on the automated process. 8. As described in paragraph 7 of my Declaration of February 2, 2013, deployment of the new functionality in WRAPS was further delayed due to a technical defect identified during the testing phase. This defect was repaired, and automated SAO requests resumed on February 8, 2018. 9. Importantly, the technical upgrades that needed to be made to WRAPS and vetting partners? systems to automate SAOs only impacted the ability to make SAO requests outside of the manual processing between the date of the injunction and February 8, 2018. These circumstances did not impact other aspects of processing for refugees from SAC) countries, including speed of prescreening by the RSCs, other security checks, medical exams, and assurances to a resettlement agency. 10. The Joint Motion to Compel also questions the allocations set on SAO checks that were requested by the RSCs through WRAPS. In February 2018, established a global allocation of 2,01 0 based on expected throughput capacity of vetting partners. Between February and April 2018, vetting partners provided a complete SAO response for only 110 individual requests, out of which 101 responses were ?not clear? meaning that these cases could not move forward in processing. A complete SAO means that the State Department has received either ?clear? responses from both vetting partners or a ?not clear? from at least one of the vetting partners. The number of SAOs completed by the vetting partners was signi?cantly lower than PRMJA had anticipated. Based on this throughput, PRWA established a new global allocation of 500 SAC) requests effective April 30, 2018. or HILARY E. momuam - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ll?l] Street NW Doe, er ai. v. Trump, 3: ml, Case No. 2: Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Family systems. er at. v. Trump, 9: at, Case No. arr-avenue (JLR) (303) Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 9 11. The reason for the allocations was to ensure that vetting partners were reviewing the most time-sensitive cases to move these cases to travel if approved. PRMIA allowed the RSCs to ?determine which SAO should be requested based on medical needs, concerns, minors who are at risk of aging out, or individuals whose travel documents will soon expire." also instructed the RSCs to ?focus on requesting SAOs for cases who are post DHS interview and not on'long-term holds in order to move these cases toward travel if the SAC) comes back as clear,? as well as to ?contact their Program Of?cer if they encounter a particularly urgent case that needs an SAO after the allocation was reached?. 12. During the period following promulgation of the Agency Memo, took other steps to implement the new data collection requirements that affect the rate of processing for SAO refugee applicants. instructed RSC partners to collect the additional data elements, which was labor intensive and required RSCs to reach out to applicants to obtain the information. At the time the preliminary injunction was ordered, there were approximately 19,500 SAOs pending a response from the vetting partners who would need a new SAO due to the additional data collected, as well as tens of thousands of applicants who would now require an SAO for the ?rst time due to the expansion in the SAO criteria. PRMIA reset all the SAOs affected by the new data collection requirement to ensure that cases with a previous cleared SAO would not move forward to travel without the RSC collecting the additional data elements and requesting and receiving a clear SAO. also instructed the RSCs that additional individuals would need an SAO because of the expansion in criteria that trigger an 8A0 once the additional data elements were collected. osemaarlou or HILARY E. INGRAHAM - DEPARTMENT 1100 I. hire-st NW Doe. er of. v. Tmmp, e! of, Case No. ULR) Washington. DC 20530 Jewish Family Service quearrie, at of. v. Trump er of, Case No. [201) 305.0914 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 9 13. The Plaintiffs also question why so much time was required to implement BF Rs in WRAPS, citing a January 11, 2018 email. It took that much time to put the BF function back into the WRAPS system in part because of staf?ng shortages given that the preliminary injunction was issued on a holiday weekend and the following week was a shortened holiday week as well. BFR information that may have been collected while the Hmvaii v. Trump preliminary injunction of portions of Executive Order 13,780, until that executive order was superseded on October 24, 2017, remained in the backend of WPS and available to . However, the BFR de?nition in this Court?s preliminary injunction Order differed from the de?nition in Hawaii v. Trump, because those with assurances were deemed to have a BFR under this Court?s Order. This difference required proper analysis and testing to ensure that the BFR functionality was activated in the system accurately. The different de?nition also required analysis of policy questions as to whether a case needed a BFR before a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services interview could occur. The time taken to add the BFR functionality back into WRAPS, however, did not delay State?s processing of SAD cases. State processed such cases without looking to WRAPS for BFR status before the update was complete including prescreening by the RSCs, requesting other security checks, medical exams, and assurances to a resettlement agenCy; and, as noted above, manual processing of SAOs that occurred before WRAPS was fully functional. 14. The information provided in this Declaration also explains why some refugees who were ready for departure on October 23, 2017 may not have entered the United States by September 24, 2018. As a result of the security enhancements at the end of the 120- . . us. DECIARATION 0F HILARY E. INthAl 1AM 7 11001. 5mm NW Doc, 21 of. v. Trump, or (IL Case No. 2ilT-cv-001T3 (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Jewish Famir'y Service ofs'eame, e: at. v. Tmmp. at at, Case No. (its) Te" ?"21 305419? ?3 In? ?~2:3 Case Document 169-3 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 9 dxy review period. mam data needed to be colic-cm} from refugu: appli?izama? imiming fawn dame pea-30m who had My mivod 3 CW 3% g, It tmi; am: far RSifstoeolloctmesc additional munch WW individunlfy. At! time: with MW data chants required new SAOs. and criteria that: an 3A1). Due to the limiwd Wt}? ofvc?iamlw?tmrx? processing SM) mm. which mulwd in the 31W these WW my my: have had 3A0 mm mm right away by the RSCs. And (fl-clomcvay may m: have been reviewed yet by $2 such 01' their new my have mm: {mu-duumzi {mime Execumdon mewm y- 5 29-13,, 1" Hilary h. . - 0? ?ll-1H? P- 3 EM: .441 Item? 915% {u Nu Fm anrqg?? Wiif r! .J Ymi rr-J 1 ?0 3 U-m Qimgi??) 31?1?} mm Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 6 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit D Case Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 6 The HonorabIe James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOHN DOE, et 31., Civil Action No. Plaintiffs, V. DONALD TRUMP, e1 31., Defendants. JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF Civil Action No. SEATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JENNIFER L. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION TO DONALD TRUMP, et al., COMPEL Defendants. (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) 1, Jennifer L. Smith, for my declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby state and depose as followsDEPARTMENT UT JENNII LR L. SMITH ?m Sin-cl NW Doe. or v. Trump, at. C1151: NO. 2: I T-ev-??l 7'8 Washington, DC 20531} Jewish Ir'cmu'i'y Service ufSeum?e. e: v. Trump. 6! at, Case No. 2: (JLR) TM: [102] 3054,92" Lo) Case Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 6 I am the Overseas Section Chief of the Admissions Of?ce of the Bureau of Pepulation, Refugees, and Migration of the United States Department of State. I have held this position since 2016. In my current position, I oversee the management ofagreementt with organizations for of the overseas processing activities for refugees being resettled in the United States, and manage the overseas refugee admissions ?pipeline? ofeases under consideration for U.S. resettlement. 1 submit this declaration in support of Defendants? Opposition to Plaintiffs? Joint Motion to Compel. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge and information made available to me in the course of carrying out my duties and responsibilities as Overseas Section Chief. The Joint Motion to Compel raises concerns about a December 26. 2017, email sent out from my of?ce that asked PRJVUA program of?cers to reach out to the Resettlement Support Centers to inquire about ?compelling expedite cases that should be interviewed due to protection/medical issues.? At the time that email was sent, shortly after the Court?s preliminary injunction Order had been issued on December 23, 201?, interviews had already been scheduled for the upcoming Second Quarter Circuit Rides. Due to the injunction?s mandate to resume processing Security Advisory Opinion refugee cases. however, asked its program of?cers to reach out to the RSCs to identify whether any scheduling slots were still available for Q2 and to provide guidance to the .RSCs on which refugee applicants to prioritize if any slots were available. An important part of the process of managing the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is to set priorities on the processing of refugee applications, taking into DECLARATION OF JENNIFER L. - 2 11.5. OF JUSTICE 11110 Street NW Doe. er of. v. i?i?map. e! mi. Case No. \?l?asliington, DC 2(15311 Jewish remit}! Service ofSeitrde. er of. v. er mi, Case No. 1 1'0? Tel: {202} 31150924 Following entry of the preliminary injunction, PRMKA, through the Resettlement Case Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 6 consideration objective prioritization criteria, the facts of individual cases, the regional allocations under the annual refugee admission ceiling, and the capacity of various processing and vetting partners at any given time. It is standard and long?term practice for the USRAP that the most important criterion for prioritization among refugee applicants is vulnerability. Vulnerability is based on objective factors such as urgent medical needs that cannot be met in the host country or the lack of adequate protection in the host country. This standard criterion long predated the October 23, 2017, Joint Memorandum to the President titled ?Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities" (?Agency Memo?). Support Centers, resumed fully processing refugees from SAO countries. Because so few interview slots were available in Q2 at the time this Court issued its preliminary injunction, however, PRMIA asked the RSCs to prioritize the most urgent SAO cases fo1 interview, using its standard prioritization system to determine which SAD refugees would be scheduled tor a Q2 interview. The email request seeking compelling cases based on ?protectiom?medieal issues? followed standard processing practice to determine which refugee applicants should be interviewed ?rst. It is also not surprising that these same criteria were used to evaluate which refugee applicants might be considered for the case-by-ease exception to the 90-day deprioritization under the Agency Memo, as these would be the type of refugee applicants whose lives were in danger, might not have been able to wait for the end ofthe 90-day period, and could be compelling cases for an exception. Unlike processing of cases requiring an SAO under the injunction, however, an SAD applicant could have been admitted under the Agency Memo?s DECLARATEON or JENNIFER SMITH - 3 HUD I. Street NW Dare. emf. 'l?r-tmap. at at, Case No. ULRJ Washington. or; 211530 me'bJ Serwce at of. v. Trump. e! at, Case No. 2; IT?cv?Ol 7?0? LILR) Te]: [203315-0924 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER L. SMITH - 4 Dee. e1 v. Trump. e! mi. Case No. TB Lilli} Washington, DC. 20530 Jan-at; Frnm'fy Service er of. v. Trump. e: mi, Case No. 2: T?cv-U Case Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 6 exception only upon a finding that potential resettlement of that SAO applicant would ful?ll critical foreign policy interests, without compromising national security and the welfare of the United States. At the time the preliminary injunction was issued, 1 can con?rm that some SAO refugee applicants had been scheduled for interviews during the Q2 circuit rides because they were considered possible candidates for consideration for a case-by-case exception, although I have not been able to establish the exact number. Reconstructing that information from USRAP records would be extremely time anti resource intensive due to the constantly ?uctuating nature of scheduling cases, which involves voluminous emails that may not contain all scheduling information. At the time ofthe preliminary injunction Order, none of these refugee applicants had been granted an exception by the Department of Homeland Security, nor did any applicant receive an exception after the preliminary injunction but before the 90-day SAO review ended. Someone who would have been admitted pursuant to the Agency Memo?s exception would likely have been a vulnerable case who was otherwise ready for departure while the Agency Memo?s 90- day SAO review was in place and who met the other criteria for admission on a case-by- ease basis. Immediately following entry ofthe preliminary injunction Order, it was believed important to ascertain whether any of the previously identified potential case-by-case exception candidates had Bona Fide Relationships to determine how they would be processed going forward. Applicants with BF Rs were removed from consideration for a casc?by-case exception because they would no longer need one. To the best of my knowledge, with the end ofthe 9Dwday review fast approaching, and the 11.5. DEPA RTMENT OF JUSTICE. 1100' Street NW Tel: (202)305-0914 Ix) Case Document 169-4 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 6 further understanding that the preliminary injunction used a definition of BFR that included assurances {which all refugee applicants will have prior to their departure to the United States). none of the pro-scheduled SAO refugee applicants were removed from the interview schedule because they lacked a BFR. Eventually State and DHS agreed that this also meant that case-by-case exceptions were no longer under consideration because all SAD refugee applicants already fell or would fall within the scope of the injunction once assured. 8. During the Q2 circuit rides. 274 SAO refugee applicants were interviewed. Most of these interviews were added as a result of the preliminary injunction. It is not feasible to establish the precise number of SAD refugee applicants who were already scheduled for interviews at the time of the preliminary injunction Order because they were possible candidates for consideration for a ease-by-ease exception. As noted above, establishing that number would require extensive research and review of a large number of emails due to the constantly ?uctuating nature of scheduling cases for interviews. Even if my of?ce undertook such an exhaustive review, it might not be possible to determine this number accurately. I declare under penalty ofperj ury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ll 'ii av. 15 .2018. T1. nnifer L. Smith oscmaa?non or JENNIFER L. SMl'l'lI - 5 DEPARTMENT 1I[ll.l L. htreet NW Doe. er al'. v. Trmup. curt. Case No. 2: 'l?cv?001?3 w'nsmugmu, DC 2053:} Jewish ofSenule. er of. v. Trump. at, Case No. "Lev-0170? Te" mm 30543924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 12 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit E Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 12 The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. AT SEATTLE Civil Action No. 2: 17-cv-001 78JLR JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et a1., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:1 DECLARATION OF JOANNA RUPPEL IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) I, Joanna Ruppel, for my Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby state and depose as follows: OI: JOANNA RUPPEL - 1 Doc. er (If. 'Ji'mnp. er al. Case No. 2: 78 Jam-h limm?y .N'w'm'v of Semi/c. c! at. ?Hum. at at. Case No. 11.8. llUll Street NW Washington. DC 20530 Tel: {202) 305-0924 U.) Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 12 I am the Chiefofthe Refugee Affairs Division (RAD). within the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (RAIO) Directorate at US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). within the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS). 1 ?rst began serving in this position in an acting capacity on February 5, 2018. and then of?cially entered on duty in permanent status on March 18, 2018. In my current position, in coordination with the International Operations Division (10), oversee refugee processing activities for USCIS worldwide. Last fiscal year, this entailed refugee processing in approximately 45 international locations. Prior to holding my current position, I was the Chief ofIO from January 2008 until I entered on duty as Chiefof RAD. In that capacity, in coordination with RAD and the Department of State (DOS), Bureau of Consular Affairs, I oversaw the overseas processing of following to join (FTJ) petitions ?led by refugees on behalf of their spouses and children located outside of the United States. In addition, in coordination with RAD, I oversaw refugee processing conducted by IO personnel. In both capacities, I have been familiar with and participated in the implementation of the 120-day review ofU.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) pursuant to Executive Order 13,780, as well as the 90- day Security Advisory Opinion review and the directive to implement adequate screening mechanisms for refugee applicants similar to the processes employed for principal refugee applicants, pursuant to the October 23, 2017, Joint Memorandum to the President titled "Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities" (?Agency Memo?). I am also familiar with the court?s preliminary injunction in this litigation, and efforts to comply with that injunction. I submit this Declaration in support of Defendants? Opposition to Plaintiffs? Joint Motion to Compel. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge and information made available to me in the course ofcarrying out my duties and responsibilities in the positions described above. or JOANNA RUPPIEL 2 0F IIOO Street Doe. e! at. Yi'mnp. a! Case (JIR) l-imnh' Nt?rl'l?? gramme. (It at. v. Case No. 2; I 7-cv-0 I ?207 (Jl .R) Tel: {203} 30541924 Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 12 First, I would like to explain the steps taken to timely notify all staff responsible for processing refugee and cases of the preliminary injunction. After the preliminary injunction was issued on December 23, 2017, the Associate Director Jennifer B. Higgins, sent an email on December 24, 2017 to all RAIO staff making refugee and 10 of?cers aware of the preliminary injunction. On December 24, 2017, Barbara Strack. then ChiefofRAD, forwarded the same message to RAD staff (so they received it twice), letting them know that RAD would be working to update guidance on handling cases with bona tide relationships and assessing the impact on Q2 circuit ride planning. On December 24, 2017, I also forwarded the same message from the RAIO Associate Director to IO staff(so they received it twice), highlighting the direction to release all Tl cases previously on hold and explaining how 10 headquarters (10 HQ) would assist in facilitating identi?cation of all such cases. Next, I would like to explain steps taken to comply with the preliminary injunction to continue processing cases involving refugee applicants who are nationals countries or, if stateless, last habitually resided in such a country, hereinafter referred to as cases." At the time of the preliminary injunction, there were no refugee circuit rides in process and USCIS international of?ces (of which there are 24) were closed through Tuesday, December 26, with the exception of the of?ce in Amman Jordan, which was only open the morning of December 241". At that time and until January 1 1, 2018, there were no SAO cases in the digital stamp queue ready for review for possible ?nal approval. The digital stamp queue allows refugee and 10 of?cers to review cases for approval remotely through the World Wide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS). Cases presented for digital approval are identified solely by the Resettlement Support Centers (RSC). Likewise, RSCs are also solely responsible for providing cases to USCIS of?cers on refugee circuit rides overseas and to USCIS of?cers stationed in USCIS international ?eld of?ces JUSTICE LARAI OF JOANNA Ll. 3 1100 Street NW Doe. e! (if, Trump. 9! Case No. ULR) Washington. DC 20530 "t - 1 1 Jen-mi: l-ium?i' Service ril's'cunlc. c! r. I?rmnp. at at. Case No. 2: 70? 305 09"" DJ U1 Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 12 review and physically stamp with final approval. I have researched whether there were any SAO cases presented to 10 staff for physical stamp at the time of the preliminary injunction issued, and am not aware that any were available for ?nal approval. The first SAO cases to be physically stamped approved by 10 after the preliminary injunction were two cases approved on January 12, 2018. I do not know the date that the RSC presented those two cases to that 10 office. It is standard operating procedure for a limited number of refugee of?cers who are assigned to digitally approve cases at RAD headquarters (RAD HQ) to check the digital queue daily for new cases that are available to review and approve, if appropriate. On January 1 1, 2018, an SAO case became available for review. As SAO cases became available after this date, the digital stamping program manager at RAD HQ, with permission of RAD leadership, worked directly with officers to review those cases, consistent with the preliminary injunction. From January 1 1, 2018, until January 29. 2018, RAD staff identified 26 SAO cases involving 33 individuals who were found eligible for and stamped their cases for final approval. In addition, during this time, the RSCs presented 3 SAO cases involving 3 individuals to 10 staff which were found eligible for ?nal approval and physically stamped approved by 10 staff. Five cases on the digital stamp queue were marked ?unable to stamp" during this period for reasons unrelated to the Agency Memo; they required additional aliases to be run through security checks. Two of those cases were presented again in the digital approval queue, reviewed and stamped approved before January 29, 2018 (these are included in the 26 noted above). The other three cases were stamped approved after January 29, 2018. Separate and apart from the five cases referenced above, another four cases were found to have been erroneously placed in the digital stamp queue. or JOANNA RUPPIEI. - 4 DEPARTMENT JUSTICE 1100 l. Street MV Doc. er Yi'ump. er Case No. 2: 7-Cv-00l 78 Washington, 20530 - a 1 Jewish l-imufi' .N'w'wa' rgf'h?uurifc. c! r. ll'r'mnp. u! mi, Case No. 2:17-cv-0l70? I el. 303 0924 U: Lu x1 Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 12 The Joint Motion to Compel references cases that may have been marked ?Unable to Stamp: Evidence documenting a case-by-case determination by DHS and State required for further processing.? There were only 6 such SAO cases involving 8 individuals. All 6 cases appeared in the USCIS digital approval queue in January, after RSC staff con?rmed they were ready for review and possible approval. USCIS reviewed each case that month. All of the 6 cases have been approved and the applicants on 4 of those 6 cases have been admitted to the United States. The applicants on the other two cases have not traveled. There could be a number of reasons why an applicant whose application has been approved does not travel for a signi?cant period of time, such as when the applicant is waiting for a family member?s case to be processed so they can travel together or if there are medical issues. The timeframe for USCIS action on each of those 6 cases is as follows: Between January 1 1, 2018 and January 29, 2018, USCIS stamped approved 5 ofthose cases (these are included in the number of approved cases noted above in 11 4 line 15- 16). The 6[[1 case could not be stamped approved during that time frame, because it required additional aliases to be run through security checks. It was stamped approved in June 2018. The Joint Motion to Compel references emails from January 11, 2018 and January 12, 2018 asking staff working the digital stamp queue to hold off on stamping refugee applicants from SAO countries. These instructions were sent because, in early January 2018, while USCIS was processing refugee applications in accordance with the security enhancements stemming from the 120-day review and in compliance with the court?s preliminary injunction, RAD recognized potential issues with did not accurately identify all cases that required SAO checks under the expanded criteria. For example, some cases were erroneously listed as NRQ (not required), when in fact the individual did require an SAO. In order to prevent the or JOANNA RUPPEI. 5 01? ?00 Street Doe. cf 02?. v. Trump, Case No. 2: "Lev-00178 Washington, DC 20530 Jim-m: r-?mmrr Service tgf'St?rmfc, at at. trump. u: at. Case No. 2: 1 7-cv?0l 707 Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 12 erroneous approval ofcases without the required security checks, RAD instructed of?cers adjudicating refugee cases (from RAD as well as 10) to hold off on stamping SAO cases approved until WRAPS could be updated. If an of?cer approved a case without all required security checks being completed, he or she would be out of compliance with required procedures and the program would assume signi?cant national security risk should the checks later be returned with derogatory information, including evidence ofterrorist activity. While RAD worked with PRM to understand the reason for the potentially erroneous results in WRAPS and while RAD HQ developed guidancel on bona ?de relationships (BFR), the Program Manager at RAD HQ, with permission of RAD leadership, worked directly with officers at HQ to determine if there were any SAO cases that could be processed immediately. As noted in 1 4, RAD and 10 worked through 32 cases from January 1 l, 2018 until January 29, 2018. USCIS of?cers approved cases where they could confirm that the required security checks had been completed. Even if the applicant did not have a con?rmed BF R, the RAD HQ staff processing these cases at that time understood that the assurances any approved applicants would receive would count as the BFR pursuant to the preliminary injunction, and thus processed them in any event. It was not necessary for the RAD HQ Program Manager to send out an email rescinding the emails ofJanuary 11 and January 12, in order to move those cases forward, because RAD HQ was working directly with a team of refugee of?cers who were working the digital stamp queue to process SAO cases that could be processed. Toward the end of January, we con?rmed with Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration that a revision in WRAPS was required. Therefore, we decided it was necessary to ensure Juii'txh i'imni?l! Seri'iw rif?'uum't?. v! v. cl C351: No. 2: T-cv-O 707 ULR) This guidance was never issued, because while it was in clearance, the 90-day review was completed and all SAO cases could receive ?nal approval as long as they comported with the new enhancement requirements. As such. the issue of whether or not someone had a bona ?de relationship became moot. OF JOANNA RU - 6 100 Street NW Doc, at (if. v. i?i?zmip. e! Case No. (JLR) Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202} 305-0924 Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 12 that all RAD and 10 staff receive guidance to hold off stamping approved cases that required SAO checks until this issue was fixed. As such, further instructions were disseminated more broadly in emails on 2/1/18 to RAD teams and 2/2/18 to 10 staff to not stamp SAO cases. The instructions in these emails did not impact other aspects of refugee processing of SAD cases, which continued, such as interview, review of security check results, and HQ review of certain types of cases that require HQ review. Upon completion of the 90-day review required by the Agency Memo the Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum on January 29, 2018, directing USCIS to implement several security enhancements to refugee processing. The memorandum also directed USCIS to determine which SAO cases already interviewed by USCIS but pending final approval require a re?interview in light of the new security enhancements. In the Motion to Compel, the plaintiffs interpret this to mean that USCIS should have identified prior to April all SAO cases that would require a re?interview. This is not how we understood the directive, nor would that have been feasible to do prior to April 1, 2018, due to the need to develop guidance and conduct training to implement new enhancements by the implementation date of April 1 established in the Secretary?s January 29 memorandum, and the need to also develop the ?Pipeline DHS Review? process that would ensure compliance with those new enhancements. In addition, RAD had to work with PRM to have a PDR code created in WRAPS so that cases requiring PDR could be identi?ed for case-by?case review. Even once all cases were identified and even if we had been able to implement all enhancements prior to April 1, it would not have been feasible to complete review of all such cases by April 1, given the high volume of cases requiring case-by-case PDR review. .. .. 3 JOANNA 1 LL 7 11001. Street Doe. er at. v. Trump. e! at. Case No. (JLR) Washington. 20530 Jenn}: r-mmn- xvi-1m V. n-mup. Case No. 3:17.cv.0I707 ULR) (202) 305'092" LI) L11 10. 11. 12. Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 12 Jennifer Higgins, Associate Director for RAIO, issued an implementing memorandum on January 29, 2018, titled ?New Procedures and Revised guidelines for Refugee Adjudications as a Result of the 90-Day Review? that clarified our understanding of the directive. obligation under the January 29, 2018, Secretary?s memo and the Higgins implementing memo were twofold: (1) to institute a process and issue guidance to evaluate whether 1-590 "pipeline" SAO cases require a re-interview in light of the new protocols; and (2) to develop additional adj udicative guidance and train USCIS officers on these enhancements. Pursuant to the Higgins guidance, RAD developed and implemented the PDR process to ensure that all SAO cases that had yet to receive ?nal approval met the enhanced interview protocols developed during the 120-day review as well as those made mandatory for the 90?day review. The purpose of setting the April 1, 2018 date was to ensure that, in advance of third quarter refugee processing (which would begin April 1, 2018), RAD and 10 had the requisite guidance and training to conduct interviews that incorporated the enhancements pursuant to the Secretary?s memo. That timeframe was needed to provide sufficient time for staff to develop guidance and train of?cers so that RAD would not need to conduct PDR on any refugee applicants interviewed after April 1, 2018. The PDR process, as developed, provides that a case may be approved when it is determined to have been adjudicated in line with the current integrity measures and clears all required security checks. Currently, PDR is conducted at RAD HQ. Although PDR guidance was first issued on April 2, 2018, RAD had already begun preparing to develop PDR procedures shortly before issuance of the Secretary?s January 29, 2018 memo, in anticipation ofa directive to do so. RAD HQ deve10ped the PDR process in part by reviewing and processing pending SAO cases that had not been approved prior to January 29, 2018. This enabled RAD to continue its or JOANNA RUPPEL 100 1.. Doe, at at. v. Dump. 9! Case No. 2: T-cv-00l?8 Washington. 20530 Jamil Scrru?u :gf'Smm'c. c! r. Yi?nmp. ml. Case No. 2; 7-cv-0 70? Tel: (202) 30541924 0000'me Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 12 compliance with the preliminary injunction by processing SAO cases even as RAD developed the procedures, training and guidance for all cases requiring PDR. RAD continued to process SAO cases while developing the PDR process discussed in the April 2, 2018 guidance, including stamping such cases approved ifeligible. Speci?cally, to manage its workload, RAD focused on certain SAO cases that PRM identi?ed as priority cases. It started its review of those cases on February 1, 2018. RAD HQ of?cers were authorized to and did stamp approved two SAO cases during this time period. The ?rst SAO case cleared PDR and was approved on February 14, 2018. The second SAO case cleared PDR and was approved on March 28, 2018. Those were the only two SAO cases that had cleared all of the enhancements required by the 120-day and 90-day reviews, including enhancements for which formal guidance and training had not yet been issued to the ?eld, but HQ could con?rm complied with that upcoming guidance. RAD was not able to stamp approve more SAO cases because, of the cases reviewed for PDR, very few had received a completed SAO. . The April 2, 2018 PDR guidance (which incorporated the process deve10ped by RAD 110,) required the PDR to be conducted on all SAO cases interviewed prior to April 1, 2018 that did not have a ?nal decision before January 29, 2018. This is because not all of the vetting enhancements were fully implemented prior to April 1. Many enhancements had a target implementation date of April 1, 2018. 10 completed trainings on the new security enhancements by April 2 and RAD provided training to of?cers prior to their circuit rides in QB. Thus, RAD was con?dent that all interviews conducted after April 1 (a Sunday) would be compliant with the enhanced screening. The April 2 PDR guidance makes clear that those cases may move forward to ?nal adjudication and approval per the standard process rather than undergoing PDR review. 2' 17.3. OF JUSTICE ION 0] JOANNA LL 9 ?00 Street Doc. 9! Trump. er (If. Case No. 21] Washington. DC 20530 . . - 1 '9 - c! r. Hump. at Case No. 2:17-cv-0l707 (JLR) lcl. 305 0924 Ix) 14. 15. 16. Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 12 The April 2, 2018, PDR guidance clearly articulates how to approve an SAO case, and supersedes any preceding guidance to the contrary. In addition, as explained above, in a closely managed way to ensure compliance with the preliminary injunction and the enhancements from the 120-day review and the 90-day review, RAD HQ of?cers worked to identify and stamp approved SAO cases eligible for approval well before this date. Since February 2018, RAD has initiated PDR on approximately 555 cases, and completed PDR on approximately 440. As of November 5, 2018, approximately 6,620 cases are pending PDR. The vast majority of these (over 6,000) are pending security checks that were required in light of enhanced screening measures that were put in place after the 120?day and 90-day reviews. To efficiently deploy resources, RAD recently began prioritizing PDR review of SAO cases that have cleared security checks, since a case that does not clear required security checks would be found ineligible for resettlement and therefore would not require PDR. If PRM indicates that a case should be prioritized, USCIS will conduct PDR review even while security checks remain pending. I attest that USCIS staff worked diligently and in good faith to take all necessary steps to comply with the preliminary injunction. 3 2' LS. OF JUSTICE DEL LARA JOANNA R111 1 10 ?00 1. Street NW Doc. er a1. Trump. 9! at" Case No. ULR) Washington, 20530 .. . a 1 Jen-Ni first-um. v: at r. immp. at, Case No. (-021305 ?9-4 19 20 45* Ex) CB Case Document 169-5 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 12 I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 2018. Ha:- Joanna Ruppel or JOANNA - ll 135- 1100 I. Street Day. a! rd. ill-mug). er at. Case No. 2: ULR) 2053:: . - 1 1 Jewish l?hm?t' Sen-ice omem'e. at et all. Case No. 2:17-cv-Ul7ll7 I 305 ?924 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit F Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 122 1 The Honorable James L. Robart 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 JOHN DOE, et al., 10 11 No.: 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Plaintiffs, v. 12 DONALD TRUMP, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., 17 18 Plaintiffs, v. 19 20 21 22 DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. No.: 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JFS AND JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS (Relating to Both Cases) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33 and the Local Rules of the U.S. 23 24 25 District Court for the Western District of Washington, Defendants provide the following objections and written response to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to 26 Defendants (“Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories”). Defendants’ objections are based on information 27 known to Defendants at this time, and are made without prejudice to additional objections should 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 1 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 122 1 Defendants subsequently identify additional grounds for objection. These objections have been 2 formulated in contemplation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which generally 3 permits discovery of matters not privileged that may be relevant to the claims or defenses in a 4 5 civil action, as well as the limiting instructions set forth in the Court’s July 27, 2018, Order 6 Granting Motion for Discovery and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, ECF No. 155 7 (“July 27 Order”). In presenting these objections, Defendants do not waive any further objection 8 in pretrial motions practice or at trial to the admissibility of evidence on the grounds of relevance, 9 materiality, privilege, competency, or any other appropriate ground. 10 GENERAL OBJECTIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL INTERROGATORIES 11 12 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent that they seek (a) 13 attorney work product; (b) communications protected by the attorney-client privilege; (c) 14 information protected by the deliberative-process privilege or law enforcement privilege; 15 (d) material the disclosure of which would violate legitimate privacy interests and 16 expectations of persons not party to this litigation; (e) information protected by any form 17 of executive privilege; or (f) information covered by any other applicable privilege or 18 19 protection. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent they assume 20 that certain types of information exist. By providing these objections, Defendants do not 21 imply that any particular information exists that is responsive to Plaintiffs’ First 22 Interrogatories. 23 2. Defendants object to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” that accompany Plaintiffs’ First 24 25 Interrogatories to the extent that these sections attempt to impose obligations beyond the 26 requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of the U.S. 27 District Court for the Western District of Washington. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 2 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent that the requests seek 2 information that is already publicly available, is already in the custody or control of 3 Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel, is readily accessible to Plaintiffs, or would otherwise be 4 5 6 less burdensome for Plaintiffs to obtain than Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). 7 4. Defendants object to any requests or portions of requests contained within Plaintiffs’ First 8 Interrogatories that are not narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in 9 10 which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 5. Defendants reserve the right to make further objections as necessary to the extent that 11 12 13 additional issues arise, whether as to the scope of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories or otherwise. OBJECTIONS TO INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL 14 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories insofar as Plaintiffs purport to seek 15 discovery from President Trump. Any such discovery is not narrowly crafted and 16 proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to 17 mootness, given that Plaintiffs’ lawsuits challenge agency-level action rather than 18 19 presidential action and given further that the issues Plaintiffs have raised in prior briefing 20 concern agency-level implementation of policy and the Court’s preliminary injunction. 21 Moreover, discovery propounded on the President and/or his advisers would create an 22 undue burden and distraction from their critical executive responsibilities. See, e.g., 23 Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (“This Court has held, on more 24 25 than one occasion, that ‘[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive 26 . . . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the 27 timing and scope of discovery,’ and that the Executive’s ‘constitutional responsibilities 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 3 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 122 1 and status [are] factors counseling judicial deference and restraint’ in the conduct of 2 litigation against it . . . .” (alterations in original) (citations omitted)). 3 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent the interrogatories could 4 5 be construed as requiring each named Defendant, or an authorized representative of each, 6 to answer each and every interrogatory under oath. For each interrogatory, Defendants 7 will identify the appropriate agency or sub-agency, if any, that is able to respond without 8 undue burden, and will designate an appropriate official from each such agency or sub- 9 10 agency to sign for those interrogatories to which that agency or sub-agency has responded. 11 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 12 13 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agencies Involved in the USRAP” 14 (paragraph 1) to the extent that definition, which encompasses “all governmental 15 agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations involved in the 16 USRAP,” could be construed to require Defendants to provide information known only 17 to nonparties. Defendants will respond to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories by providing 18 19 information that is known or can reasonably be ascertained without undue burden by 20 subject-matter experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. 21 Department of State, and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, subject to 22 the objections stated in paragraphs (1) through (5) under General Objections that Apply 23 to All Interrogatories. 24 25 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agency Memo” (paragraph 2) insofar as 26 the definition states that the October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President was “issued 27 with” Executive Order 13,815. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 4 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” 2 (paragraph 8), as not proportional to the needs of resolving the mootness issue, as 3 Plaintiffs’ expansive definitions could require Defendants to seek information from all 4 5 “officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers, attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and 6 predecessors, and anyone acting on their behalf,” associated with the Defendant agencies, 7 no matter how minor or incidental their roles. 8 implication that they are required to provide responsive information supplied by President 9 10 Defendants further object to any Trump or other White House officials, for the reasons stated in paragraph (1) under Objections to Introductory Material. Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter 11 12 experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, 13 and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will seek information from 14 those appropriate subject-matter experts, keeping in mind the requirements of the Federal 15 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its July 27 Order that discovery 16 should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery 17 is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 18 19 4. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Document” and “Documents” (paragraph 20 9) to the extent the definitions encompass attorney work product or material covered by 21 the attorney-client privilege. Defendants further object to the extent the definitions 22 encompass information derived solely from drafts or other such deliberative material. 23 Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “control” to the extent Plaintiffs 24 25 26 purport to require Defendants to search for and provide information derived from documents held in the custody of nonparties. Any such expansive request would not be 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 5 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 122 1 narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited 2 to issues pertaining to mootness. 3 5. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Processing of Applications” (paragraph 15) 4 5 to the extent the definition could be construed to require Defendants to provide 6 information from entities other than the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. 7 Department of State, or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 8 9 10 OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 1 that Defendants “furnish all information” to the extent that instruction could be construed to require Defendants to 11 12 produce privileged material. Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in 13 paragraph 1 to furnish any information “contained in or on any Document, that is known 14 or available to You, including all information in the possession of Your attorneys or other 15 persons acting on Your behalf or under Your attorney’s employment or direction,” as 16 overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the mootness issue in this case. 17 Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter experts at the U.S. Department of 18 19 Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and/or the Office of the Director of 20 National Intelligence, who have relevant information, and will provide information 21 supplied by those subject-matter experts, keeping in mind the requirement of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its July 27 Order that discovery 23 should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery 24 25 is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 26 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 3 that, for any interrogatories to 27 which Defendants are unable to respond fully despite Defendants’ reasonable diligence, 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 6 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 122 1 Defendants must “state what knowledge, information, and belief [Defendants] have 2 concerning the unanswered portion of each such interrogatory,” as this instruction is 3 vague and could be construed to require Defendants to provide incomplete data that 4 5 creates a misimpression as to some aspect or aspects of refugee processing. Defendants 6 will answer those interrogatories to which they are reasonably able to respond without 7 disclosing privileged information and will identify any interrogatories to which they are 8 unable to respond and summarize the reason(s) for such nonresponse. 9 10 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 4 insofar as it seeks information “subject to Your control or ascertainable by You, Your attorneys, or others acting on 11 12 Your behalf upon reasonable inquiry,” as overly broad and not proportional to the needs 13 of the mootness issue in this case. Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter 14 experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, 15 and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who have relevant information, 16 and will provide information supplied by those subject-matter experts, keeping in mind 17 the requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its 18 19 July 27 Order that discovery should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of 20 this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. Defendants 21 further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 4 insofar as it would require 22 Defendants to provide the names or contact information of third parties not employed by 23 the Defendant agencies. 24 25 4. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 6 to the extent the instruction 26 could be construed as imposing on Defendants an obligation to continually update their 27 responses as new data is generated. Defendants will cabin their responses to data 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 7 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 122 1 generated between October 23, 2017 (the date on which the Agency Memo took effect), 2 and August 27, 2018 (the date on which Defendants’ subject-matter experts began their 3 data collection efforts). Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 4 5 6, as the phrase “any person acting on their behalf obtains additional information” is 6 vague and ambiguous. Defendants understand and will comply with their duty of 7 supplementation within the meaning of Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure. 9 10 5. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 7 insofar as the instruction implies that interrogatories 1 through 4, 7 through 9, and 11 through 25 each request data 11 12 concerning both the SAO and the FTJ refugee applicant populations. As set forth in 13 Defendants’ Specific Objections and Reponses below, some of the interrogatories as 14 drafted do not relate to both populations. 15 16 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS The following responses are based upon information currently known to Defendants, and 17 Defendants reserve the right to amend, supplement, or alter these objections and responses to 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories at any time. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the number of cases and refugees referred to the USRAP each week. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants have replicated Plaintiffs’ use of bolding in these objections, for consistency and clarity. Such replication does not constitute any concession by Defendants that Plaintiffs’ definitions are proper or that the discovery Plaintiffs seek is appropriately tailored to the sole question of mootness for which limited discovery has been authorized. DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 8 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 1, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 1 insofar as it seeks only data pertaining to refugee applicants referred to the USRAP, as it would be unduly burdensome for Defendants to 10 extract this population from the total population of refugee applicants who enter the 11 12 USRAP. Defendants will provide data concerning the cases and refugee applicants that 13 enter the USRAP each week during the relevant period, subject to the objections set forth 14 herein. 15 16 4. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 1 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee applicants who are not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. Because those 17 FTJ refugee applicants are not “referred to [or otherwise enter or are processed through] 18 19 the USRAP,” this interrogatory does not apply to those FTJ refugee applicants. 20 RESPONSE 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 22 attached Exhibit A. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 24 25 Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom RSC pre-screening interviews were completed each week. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 9 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 2, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 2 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee applicants other than such applicants processed at RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. This 10 interrogatory does not apply to FTJ refugee applicants processed at locations other than 11 12 RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. 13 RESPONSE 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 15 attached Exhibit B. 16 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 18 Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were requested each week. 19 20 21 22 23 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 3, as the requested information is overbroad and 24 25 26 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 10 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 3 insofar as it requests information about security 2 checks other than security advisory opinions requested for FTJ refugee applicants 3 processed at locations other than RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. Because other types of 4 security checks are initiated at different stages of the FTJ adjudication process and are 5 6 run through a variety of systems, collection of such data would be unduly burdensome 7 for Defendants. 8 9 10 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the attached Exhibits C, D, and E. Exhibit C reflects the number of non-FTJ refugee applicants for 11 12 whom the State Department requested security checks, as recorded in WRAPS, as well as the 13 number of FTJ refugee applicants processed at RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand for whom the 14 State Department requested security checks (but it does not include the number of USCIS 15 Enhanced FDNS Review (“EFR”) requests for these applicants). Exhibit D reflects the number 16 of security advisory opinions requested for FTJ applicants processed at overseas locations other 17 than RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. Exhibit E reflects the number of USCIS EFR requests for 18 19 FTJ applicants who require a security advisory opinion. EFR involves classified and unclassified 20 research (“EFR-1”) and screening data against publicly available social media accounts (“EFR- 21 2”). 22 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 24 Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were completed each week. 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 11 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 13 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 4, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 4 insofar as it requests information about security checks other than security advisory opinions requested for FTJ refugee applicants 10 processed at locations other than RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. Because other types of 11 12 security checks are initiated at different stages of the FTJ adjudication process and are 13 run through a variety of systems, collection of such data would be unduly burdensome 14 for Defendants. 15 16 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 17 attached Exhibits F and G. Exhibit F reflects the number of non-FTJ refugee applicants for whom 18 19 security checks requested by the Department of State were completed as recorded in WRAPS, as 20 well as the number of such checks completed for FTJ refugee applicants processed at RSC Kenya 21 and RSC Thailand (but it does not include the number of USCIS EFRs completed for these 22 applicants). Exhibit G reflects the number of USCIS EFRs completed for FTJ applicants who 23 require a security advisory opinion. No security advisory opinions were completed for FTJ 24 25 26 applicants processed through consular posts between October 23, 2017, and August 27, 2018. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 12 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 14 of 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 Identify the number of I-730 petitions filed each week, and of those, the number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries. OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 5, as the requested information is overbroad and 7 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 8 9 to mootness. 10 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it requests data about applicants 11 for asylum who file Form I-730 petitions like principal refugees seeking the admission of 12 FTJ family members. Defendants will provide responsive data about the FTJ refugee 13 applicant population. 14 15 16 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the attached Exhibit H, which reflects the number of I-730 petitions received by USCIS. 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 6 18 19 Identify the number of I-730 petitions forwarded to overseas posts each week, and of those, the number of petitions corresponding to Beneficiaries From SAO Countries. 20 OBJECTIONS 21 22 23 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 24 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 6, as the requested information is overbroad and 25 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 26 to mootness. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 13 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 15 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 6 as vague and ambiguous. Defendants construe 2 the request as seeking the number of cases the National Visa Center transferred to 3 overseas posts on a weekly basis, and will answer accordingly. 4 5 RESPONSE 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 7 attached Exhibit I. For any week during the requested time period that is not reflected by a 8 separate row in the attached, no cases were transferred to the National Visa Center during that 9 week. 10 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 12 13 Identify the number of refugee interviews completed by Defendants and the number of cases for which interviews were completed each week. 14 OBJECTIONS 15 16 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 17 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 7, as the requested information is overbroad and 18 19 20 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 21 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 7 insofar as it seeks data about interviews 22 completed for FTJ refugee applicants processed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. 23 Defendants are unable to provide such data because the Bureau of Consular Affairs does 24 25 26 27 not track information on interviews for FTJ cases. Defendants will instead provide data about first adjudications completed, which is tracked by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. RESPONSE 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 14 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 16 of 122 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 2 attached Exhibits J, K, and L. Exhibit J reflects the number of interviews completed for non-FTJ 3 applicants, as well as interviews completed for FTJ refugee applicants processed at RSC Kenya 4 5 and RSC Thailand. Exhibit K reflects the number of first adjudications completed for FTJ 6 refugee applicants processed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. Exhibit L reflects the number 7 of interviews completed for FTJ applicants who are processed by USCIS overseas at locations 8 other than RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. 9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 11 Identify the number of refugee re-interviews requested by Defendants and the number of cases for which re-interviews were requested each week. 12 13 14 15 16 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 8, as the requested information is overbroad and 17 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 18 19 to mootness. 20 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 8 and are unable to provide a response to this 21 interrogatory because re-interviews are not tracked in a structured and standardized 22 manner in the appropriate case management systems. 23 RESPONSE 24 25 26 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 15 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 17 of 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 Identify the number of refugee re-interviews completed by Defendants and the number of cases for which re-interviews were completed each week. OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 9, as the requested information is overbroad and 7 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 8 9 to mootness. 10 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 9 and are unable to provide a response to this 11 interrogatory because re-interviews are not tracked in a structured and standardized 12 manner in the appropriate case management systems. 13 RESPONSE 14 15 16 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 For the time period since December 23, 2017, identify the number of Refugees from SAO Countries and associated cases receiving decisions relating to their BFR Status each week. OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 10, as the requested information is overbroad and 24 25 26 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 16 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 18 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 10 insofar as it could be construed to request data 2 about BFR status outside the period during which BFR status was tracked. Defendants 3 will provide responsive data for the period running from December 23, 2017, to June 20, 4 5 2018. 6 RESPONSE 7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 8 attached Exhibit M. 9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 11 Identify the number of cases and refugees conditionally approved for admission postinterview each week. 12 13 14 15 16 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 11, as the requested information is overbroad and 17 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 18 19 to mootness. 20 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 11 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee 21 applicants. Conditional approval for admission post-interview does not apply to FTJ 22 refugee applicants except for those processed by RSC Thailand and RSC Kenya. 23 RESPONSE 24 25 26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the attached Exhibit N. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 17 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 19 of 122 1 2 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify the number of denials of cases and refugees each week. OBJECTIONS 4 5 6 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 7 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 12, as the requested information is overbroad and 8 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 9 10 to mootness. RESPONSE 11 12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer you to the attached 13 Exhibits O and P. Exhibit O reflects the number of non-FTJ refugee applicants whose 14 applications were denied. Exhibit P reflects the number of FTJ applicants whose applications 15 were denied. 16 17 18 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify the number of cases and refugees for whom assurances were issued each week. OBJECTIONS 20 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to 21 22 Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 23 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 13, as the requested information is overbroad and 24 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 25 to mootness. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 18 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 20 of 122 1 RESPONSE 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 3 attached Exhibit Q. 4 5 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify the number of cases and refugees who were admitted into the United States each week. 7 OBJECTIONS 8 9 10 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 11 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 14, as the requested information is overbroad and 12 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 13 to mootness. 14 15 RESPONSE 16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 17 attached Exhibit R. 18 19 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify the total number of cases and refugees for whom security checks were or are pending on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week). 21 22 23 24 25 26 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 15, as the requested information is overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 27 to mootness. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 19 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 21 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 15. The interrogatory requests information about 2 pending security checks at specified moments in time, but the relevant databases are 3 structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events occur; they do 4 5 not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that is easily 6 searchable. It would take Defendants’ statisticians a substantial amount of time and 7 resources to write queries to generate this data, and the burden of that effort would be 8 disproportional to the needs of this case, in which discovery is narrowly tailored to and 9 10 limited to the question of mootness. RESPONSE 11 12 13 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 14 15 16 Identify the total number of cases and refugees waiting for decision post-interview on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week). OBJECTIONS 17 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to 18 19 Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 20 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 16, as the requested information is overbroad and 21 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 22 to mootness. 23 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 16. The interrogatory requests information about 24 25 pending post-interview decisions at specified moments in time, but the relevant databases 26 are structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events occur; they 27 do not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that is easily 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 20 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 22 of 122 1 searchable. It would take Defendants’ statisticians a substantial amount of time and 2 resources to write queries to generate this data, and the burden of that effort would be 3 disproportional to the needs of this case, in which discovery is narrowly tailored to and 4 5 limited to the question of mootness. 6 RESPONSE 7 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 16. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 9 10 For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees whose applications were on hold on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week). 11 OBJECTIONS 12 13 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 14 15 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 17, as the requested information is overbroad and 16 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 17 to mootness. 18 19 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 17. The interrogatory requests information about applications on hold at specified moments in time, but the relevant databases are 20 structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events occur; they do 21 22 not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that is easily 23 searchable. It would take Defendants’ statisticians a substantial amount of time and 24 resources to write queries to generate this data, and the burden of that effort would be 25 disproportional to the needs of this case, in which discovery is narrowly tailored to and 26 limited to the question of mootness. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 21 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 23 of 122 1 RESPONSE 2 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 17. 3 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 5 6 For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees ready for departure on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week). 7 OBJECTIONS 8 9 10 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 18, as the requested information is overbroad and 11 12 13 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 14 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 18. The interrogatory requests information about 15 refugee applicants “ready for departure” at specified moments in time, but the relevant 16 databases are structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events 17 occur; they do not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that 18 19 is easily searchable. It would take Defendants’ statisticians a substantial amount of time 20 and resources to write queries to generate this data, and the burden of that effort would 21 be disproportional to the needs of this case, in which discovery is narrowly tailored to and 22 limited to the question of mootness. 23 RESPONSE 24 25 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 18. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 22 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 24 of 122 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 2 3 For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees with assurances on the first day of each week (or another defined day of each week). 4 OBJECTIONS 5 6 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 7 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 19, as the requested information is overbroad and 8 9 10 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 11 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 19. The interrogatory requests information about 12 refugee applicants with assurances at specified moments in time, but the relevant 13 databases are structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events 14 15 occur; they do not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that 16 is easily searchable. It would take Defendants’ statisticians a substantial amount of time 17 and resources to write queries to generate this data, and the burden of that effort would 18 be disproportional to the needs of this case, in which discovery is narrowly tailored to and 19 limited to the question of mootness. 20 RESPONSE 21 22 23 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 24 25 For each week, identify the total number of cases and refugees in the USRAP who had not or have not yet been interviewed, broken down by their countries of current residence. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 23 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 25 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 20, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 20. The interrogatory requests information about cases and refugee applicants pending interviews on a weekly basis, but the relevant 10 databases are structured to track when particular actions are taken or particular events 11 12 occur; they do not maintain historic information about pending actions in a structure that 13 is easily searchable. The requested data would be highly burdensome for the State 14 Department to obtain, and it would be functionally impossible for USCIS to obtain absent 15 extraordinary manual effort, as there is no single, global system that houses all FTJ cases 16 or manages every step of a given case. The burden on the agencies should they attempt 17 to produce this data would greatly outweigh the needs of this case, in which discovery is 18 19 narrowly tailored and limited to the question of mootness. 20 RESPONSE 21 In light of the foregoing objections, Defendants will not respond to Interrogatory No. 20. 22 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 24 For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, identify the number of Circuit Rides scheduled each week prior to the issuance of the Agency Memo, as well as their planned locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers to be involved, and number of interviews scheduled, broken down into cases and refugees. 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 24 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 26 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 21, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 10 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants answer as follows: DHS does not have any responsive data to Interrogatory 21, because DHS did not plan any circuit rides 11 12 for the first quarter of FY2018 prior to the release of the October 23, 2017, Joint Memorandum 13 to the President (“Agency Memo”). All circuit rides that took place during the first quarter of 14 FY2018 were planned and occurred after the release of the Agency Memo. The only refugee 15 processing that DHS conducted during October 2017, prior to the release of the Agency Memo, 16 was ongoing in-office refugee processing in the USCIS Moscow field office. 17 18 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 21 For each fiscal quarter beginning with Fiscal Year 2016 to present, identify the number of Circuit Rides held, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into cases and refugees. 22 OBJECTIONS 20 23 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to 24 25 Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 25 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 27 of 122 1 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 22, as the requested information is overbroad and 2 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 3 to mootness. 4 5 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 22 insofar as it requests comprehensive data about 6 RAIO staffing on prior-year circuit rides. Though Defendants will make a reasonable 7 effort to respond to Interrogatory No. 22, Defendants have not retained comprehensive 8 data about prior-year circuit ride staffing. 9 10 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 11 12 attached Exhibits S and T. The locations listed in Exhibit S indicate the country where these 13 refugee cases and individuals were originally entered into the USRAP tracking database. 14 However, not all refugee applicants are interviewed by USCIS in the same country where they 15 first enter the USRAP. On occasion, refugee applicants may receive some pre-screening for the 16 USRAP in one country but are then interviewed in a different country within the same region. 17 Therefore, there may be instances where a location identified on Exhibit S does not align to a 18 19 location where DHS conducted a circuit ride or in-office refuge processing during that period. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 21 23 For the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2018, identify the number of Circuit Rides scheduled, as well as their locations, durations, number of RAIO Officers involved, and number of interviews scheduled per location, broken down into cases and refugees. 24 OBJECTIONS 22 25 26 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 26 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 28 of 122 1 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 23, as the requested information is overbroad and 2 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 3 to mootness. 4 5 RESPONSE 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 7 attached Exhibits T and U. The locations listed in Exhibit U indicate the country where these 8 refugee cases and individuals were originally entered into the USRAP tracking database. 9 10 However, not all refugee applicants are interviewed by USCIS in the same country where they first enter the USRAP. On occasion, refugee applicants may receive some pre-screening for the 11 12 USRAP in one country but are then interviewed in a different country within the same region. 13 Therefore, there may be instances where a location identified on Exhibit U does not align to a 14 location where DHS conducted a circuit ride or in-office refuge processing during that period. 15 16 17 DATED: September 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ Joseph C. Dugan KEVIN SNELL JOSEPH C. DUGAN DANIEL BENSING Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 27 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 29 of 122 1 3 Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov 4 Attorneys for Defendants 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 28 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 acumen?IsmsCase Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 30 of 122 1, Hilary E. Ingraham, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing responses to Interrogatories No. 1 (Exhibit A), 2 (Exhibit B), 3 (Exhibit C), 4 (Exhibit F), (Exhibit J), 10 (Exhibit M). 1 1 (Exhibit N), 12 (Exhibit 0), 13 (Exhibit Q), and 14 (Exhibit R) from Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe?s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I make this statement based on facts known to me and information provided to me in the course of my of?cial duties. Executed September 26, 2018, at Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to 28 .S.C. 1?46. Hilar; E. Ingraham Director Refugee Processing Center Bureau ofPopulation, Refugees and Migration Department of State URJELCTIONS WRITTEN RESPONSES TO IFS ?1 JOSEPH FIRST SET DEPARTMENT OF Ul" INTI ERROGS. TU DHFS. 20 Massachusetts Ave: NW Moe. e! at. v. Trump. 91' No. waSh'Wto?i DC 2933" Jewish- ofSearn'e, er 521'. 1-1. Trimzp. e! a! No. 2: (JLR) TM: [202} 314-3259 Case Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 31 of 122 1. Joel Nantais, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing responses to Interrogatories No. 3 [Exhibit D), 4, 6 (Exhibit 1), 7 (Exhibit K), and 12 from Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe?s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants are true and correct to the best oi" my knowledge and belief. I make this statement based on facts known to me and information provided to me in the course of my of?cial duties. Executed September 26, 2018, at Washington, D.C., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. oeli a?tais irector of Domestic Operations, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Department of State 3: RESPONSES TO .IFS JOSEPH DUES FIRST SET TO [311119. In Massachusetts Ave, NW Doe. e! Trump. a at. No. 2: I Lev-omit: ma) ?iI'H-il-I Jewish Fi?m?ly Service riffs'eume, a! Trump. 91' (ii. No. 2: i i? Case Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 32 of 122 1, Ted H. Kim, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing responses to Interrogatories No. 3 (Exhibit E), 4 (Exhibit G), 5 (Exhibit H), 7 (Exhibit L), 12 (Exhibit P), 21, 22 (Exhibit and T), and 23 (Exhibits and U) from Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe?s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I make this statement based on facts known to me and information provided to me in the course of my official duties. Executed September 27, 2018, at Washington, DC, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. OBJECTIONS WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS JOSEPH FIRST SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. Ted 13le Kim Deputy Associate Director Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate US. Citizenship and Immigration Services Doe, er al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17?Cv?00178 (JLR) Vl?wich ani/v .S'Prvirp Pf n/ Trumn pt No (H R) US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 33 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit A Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 34 of 122 Ref er r al s/ Appl i c at i onsr ec ei vedbyt heUSRAP:Oc t ober23,2017-August27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es SubTot al I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 97 174 122 318 219 492 219 492 Oc t ober29,2017 378 1, 058 148 372 526 1, 430 526 1, 430 November05,2017 368 669 120 332 488 1, 001 488 1, 001 November12,2017 65 174 133 340 198 514 198 514 November19,2017 92 255 201 469 293 724 293 724 November26,2017 201 517 133 363 334 880 334 880 Dec ember03,2017 55 100 170 472 225 572 225 572 Dec ember10,2017 117 268 140 424 257 692 335 770 Dec ember17,2017 480 1, 519 133 364 613 1, 883 613 1, 883 Dec ember24,2017 252 551 86 252 338 803 338 803 Dec ember31,2017 44 82 86 225 130 307 130 307 J anuar y07,2018 62 113 132 355 194 468 194 468 J anuar y14,2018 121 257 89 227 210 484 210 484 J anuar y21,2018 103 200 121 339 224 539 224 539 J anuar y28,2018 489 1, 295 120 291 609 1, 586 610 1, 587 Febr uar y04,2018 53 136 106 322 159 458 159 458 Febr uar y11,2018 70 142 77 217 147 359 147 359 Febr uar y18,2018 34 126 119 306 153 432 153 432 Febr uar y25,2018 381 1, 053 117 295 498 1, 348 498 1, 348 Mar c h04,2018 36 114 81 202 117 316 117 316 Mar c h11,2018 93 209 167 384 260 593 260 593 Mar c h18,2018 152 360 165 426 317 786 317 786 Mar c h25,2018 720 2, 203 110 273 830 2, 476 830 2, 476 Apr i l01,2018 78 195 206 649 284 844 284 844 Apr i l08,2018 127 314 132 322 259 636 259 636 Apr i l15,2018 48 101 94 248 142 349 144 351 Apr i l22,2018 231 726 135 409 366 1, 135 366 1, 135 Apr i l29,2018 87 185 111 313 198 498 198 498 May06,2018 67 138 104 255 171 393 171 393 May13,2018 30 67 93 224 123 291 123 291 May20,2018 156 345 153 358 309 703 309 703 May27,2018 416 1, 141 111 338 527 1, 479 527 1, 479 J une03,2018 155 284 139 313 294 597 294 597 J une10,2018 136 266 70 202 206 468 206 468 J une17,2018 251 589 95 272 346 861 346 861 J une24,2018 418 1, 172 114 298 532 1, 470 532 1, 470 J ul y01,2018 106 258 106 279 212 537 212 537 J ul y08,2018 66 128 84 248 150 376 150 376 J ul y15,2018 123 384 51 169 174 553 174 553 J ul y22,2018 177 494 84 250 261 744 261 744 J ul y29,2018 349 884 106 281 455 1, 165 455 1, 165 August05,2018 88 201 95 254 183 455 183 455 August12,2018 38 112 73 215 111 327 111 327 August19,2018 69 218 27 61 96 279 96 279 August26,2018 6 12 22 61 28 73 28 73 7, 685 19, 789 5, 081 13, 587 12, 766 33, 376 12, 847 33, 457 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 24 I nds 24 Cases Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases Gr andTot al Cases FTJf r om SAO Count r i es 54 1 1 25 1 25 1 56 I nds 54 1 1 56 Cases 78 1 2 81 I nds 78 1 2 81 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 35 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit B Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 36 of 122 Pr esc r eenI nt er vi ewsCompl et ed:Oc t ober23,2017-August27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 155 338 173 549 328 887 Oc t ober29,2017 170 361 25 62 195 423 November5,2017 185 453 28 52 213 505 November12,2017 429 1, 097 22 33 451 November19,2017 505 1, 120 49 107 November26,2017 546 1, 105 34 Dec ember3,2017 557 1, 218 27 Dec ember10,2017 582 1, 520 Dec ember17,2017 280 I nds 328 887 195 423 214 506 1, 130 451 1, 130 554 1, 227 554 1, 227 48 580 1, 153 580 1, 153 41 584 1, 259 584 1, 259 38 96 620 1, 616 620 1, 616 683 15 26 295 709 295 709 39 70 10 20 49 90 Dec ember31,2017 115 232 10 10 125 242 J anuar y7,2018 264 616 57 140 321 756 J anuar y14,2018 275 621 151 254 426 J anuar y21,2018 326 795 186 246 J anuar y28,2018 336 793 94 153 Febr uar y4,2018 429 1, 138 56 Febr uar y11,2018 428 1, 261 Febr uar y18,2018 303 Febr uar y25,2018 281 Mar c h4,2018 1 3 I nds Cases Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases Dec ember24,2017 Cases FTJf r om SAO Count r i es I nds 1 1 1 1 1 53 95 242 322 757 875 426 875 512 1, 041 512 1, 041 430 946 430 946 90 485 1, 228 485 1, 228 59 152 487 1, 413 487 1, 413 867 39 72 342 939 1 1 1 1 343 940 727 33 48 314 775 13 13 23 23 36 36 350 811 326 801 34 52 360 853 17 17 26 26 43 43 403 896 Mar c h11,2018 375 908 155 315 530 1, 223 2 2 2 2 532 1, 225 Mar c h18,2018 554 1, 435 58 121 612 1, 556 612 1, 556 Mar c h25,2018 191 418 76 161 267 579 5 6 1 1 6 7 273 586 Apr i l1,2018 175 319 82 181 257 500 1 2 1 2 258 502 Apr i l8,2018 460 1, 013 302 868 762 1, 881 9 9 817 1, 936 Apr i l15,2018 144 287 126 400 270 687 Apr i l22,2018 142 294 135 490 277 Apr i l29,2018 222 618 106 357 May6,2018 296 792 240 May13,2018 434 1, 139 May20,2018 397 1, 031 May27,2018 326 J une3,2018 1 4 I nds 125 1 4 Cases 1 5 1 46 46 55 55 270 687 784 1 1 1 1 278 785 328 975 13 13 13 13 341 988 672 536 1, 464 1 2 537 1, 466 219 658 653 1, 797 1 1 1 1 654 1, 798 308 1, 273 705 2, 304 13 13 13 13 718 2, 317 876 226 686 552 1, 562 5 5 88 88 93 93 645 1, 655 504 1, 255 433 1, 197 937 2, 452 31 31 41 41 72 72 1, 009 2, 524 J une10,2018 609 1, 480 293 957 902 2, 437 6 6 6 6 12 12 914 2, 449 J une17,2018 490 1, 225 481 1, 698 971 2, 923 8 8 8 8 979 2, 931 J une24,2018 241 481 126 419 367 900 3 3 3 3 370 903 J ul y1,2018 141 258 67 155 208 413 1 1 1 1 209 414 J ul y8,2018 215 431 75 195 290 626 1 1 1 1 291 627 J ul y15,2018 164 357 70 155 234 512 234 512 J ul y22,2018 167 352 63 153 230 505 230 505 J ul y29,2018 168 338 61 110 229 448 233 453 August5,2018 242 582 48 101 290 683 290 683 August12,2018 332 781 103 290 435 1, 071 435 1, 071 August19,2018 218 506 6 15 224 521 226 523 August26,2018 54 100 1 1 55 101 55 101 13, 792 33, 092 5, 000 13, 879 18, 792 46, 971 19, 167 47, 351 Gr andTot al *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 1 1 2 2 3 2 95 100 280 3 2 280 4 2 375 5 2 380 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 37 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit C Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 38 of 122 Sec ur i t yChec ksRequest ed-Oc t ober23,2017-August27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Cases Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Al lRef ugees SubTot al I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 438 658 575 1, 088 1, 013 1, 746 1 1 1 1 2 2 1, 015 1, 748 Oc t ober29,2017 1, 022 1, 572 628 1, 059 1, 650 2, 631 4 4 3 3 7 7 1, 657 2, 638 November5,2017 1, 305 2, 045 712 1, 226 2, 017 3, 271 9 9 2 2 11 11 2, 028 3, 282 November12,2017 2, 333 4, 158 931 1, 690 3, 264 5, 848 14 14 14 14 3, 278 5, 862 November19,2017 2, 155 4, 097 456 762 2, 611 4, 859 10 10 10 10 2, 621 4, 869 November26,2017 2, 332 4, 220 494 829 2, 826 5, 049 3 3 3 3 2, 829 5, 052 Dec ember3,2017 2, 451 3, 956 882 1, 586 3, 333 5, 542 3 3 3 3 3, 336 5, 545 Dec ember10,2017 2, 201 3, 882 795 1, 452 2, 996 5, 334 1 1 1 1 2, 997 5, 335 Dec ember17,2017 2, 221 3, 764 1, 179 2, 063 3, 400 5, 827 2 2 2 2 3, 402 5, 829 Dec ember24,2017 2, 157 3, 341 610 1, 070 2, 767 4, 411 4 5 4 5 2, 771 4, 416 Dec ember31,2017 2, 178 3, 554 692 1, 072 2, 870 4, 626 3 3 3 3 2, 873 4, 629 J anuar y7,2018 2, 404 4, 042 2, 988 4, 594 5, 392 8, 636 20 20 20 20 5, 412 8, 656 J anuar y14,2018 2, 175 3, 546 2, 092 3, 374 4, 267 6, 920 11 11 11 11 4, 278 6, 931 J anuar y21,2018 1, 600 2, 567 2, 378 4, 425 3, 978 6, 992 7 7 7 7 3, 985 6, 999 J anuar y28,2018 1, 683 2, 690 2, 016 4, 370 3, 699 7, 060 9 9 1 1 10 10 3, 709 7, 070 Febr uar y4,2018 1, 935 3, 220 1, 728 3, 322 3, 663 6, 542 14 14 1 1 15 15 3, 678 6, 557 Febr uar y11,2018 2, 029 3, 505 2, 551 5, 290 4, 580 8, 795 3 4 11 11 14 15 4, 594 8, 810 Febr uar y18,2018 1, 874 3, 067 2, 205 4, 239 4, 079 7, 306 12 12 15 15 27 27 4, 106 7, 333 Febr uar y25,2018 2, 108 3, 504 2, 446 4, 434 4, 554 7, 938 11 11 63 63 74 74 4, 628 8, 012 Mar c h4,2018 1, 547 2, 607 2, 211 4, 192 3, 758 6, 799 35 35 53 53 88 88 3, 846 6, 887 Mar c h11,2018 1, 432 2, 581 1, 852 3, 339 3, 284 5, 920 16 16 12 12 28 28 3, 312 5, 948 Mar c h18,2018 2, 601 4, 563 1, 789 3, 056 4, 390 7, 619 12 12 16 16 28 28 4, 418 7, 647 Mar c h25,2018 2, 062 3, 663 1, 741 2, 887 3, 803 6, 550 19 19 31 31 50 50 3, 853 6, 600 Apr i l1,2018 1, 904 2, 995 1, 586 2, 805 3, 490 5, 800 7 7 27 27 34 34 3, 524 5, 834 Apr i l8,2018 2, 209 3, 418 2, 576 5, 540 4, 785 8, 958 7 7 11 11 18 18 4, 803 8, 976 Apr i l15,2018 2, 073 3, 137 3, 043 6, 340 5, 116 9, 477 13 13 54 54 67 67 5, 183 9, 544 Apr i l22,2018 1, 056 1, 702 3, 046 5, 531 4, 102 7, 233 10 10 52 52 62 62 4, 164 7, 295 Apr i l29,2018 1, 435 2, 326 2, 016 4, 047 3, 451 6, 373 3 4 31 31 34 35 3, 485 6, 408 May6,2018 1, 622 2, 843 3, 398 6, 470 5, 020 9, 313 8 8 85 85 93 93 5, 113 9, 406 May13,2018 1, 534 2, 567 1, 568 3, 012 3, 102 5, 579 5 5 25 25 30 30 3, 132 5, 609 May20,2018 1, 603 2, 712 1, 834 3, 278 3, 437 5, 990 3 3 48 48 51 51 3, 488 6, 041 May27,2018 1, 184 2, 055 1, 217 2, 318 2, 401 4, 373 10 12 27 27 37 39 2, 438 4, 412 J une3,2018 1, 732 2, 856 1, 295 2, 520 3, 027 5, 376 14 14 35 35 49 49 3, 076 5, 425 J une10,2018 2, 316 3, 953 1, 498 2, 975 3, 814 6, 928 3 3 10 10 13 13 3, 827 6, 941 J une17,2018 2, 148 3, 560 746 1, 329 2, 894 4, 889 12 12 29 29 41 41 2, 935 4, 930 J une24,2018 1, 382 2, 293 1, 139 2, 109 2, 521 4, 402 6 7 35 35 41 42 2, 562 4, 444 J ul y1,2018 1, 929 3, 481 788 1, 217 2, 717 4, 698 10 10 8 8 18 18 2, 735 4, 716 J ul y8,2018 1, 925 3, 087 1, 184 2, 354 3, 109 5, 441 10 10 28 28 38 38 3, 147 5, 479 J ul y15,2018 1, 518 2, 616 998 1, 755 2, 516 4, 371 7 7 7 7 14 14 2, 530 4, 385 J ul y22,2018 1, 335 2, 234 840 1, 523 2, 175 3, 757 4 4 17 17 21 21 2, 196 3, 778 J ul y29,2018 1, 176 1, 992 658 1, 060 1, 834 3, 052 7 7 12 12 19 19 1, 853 3, 071 August5,2018 1, 711 3, 116 1, 569 3, 633 3, 280 6, 749 5 5 18 18 23 23 3, 303 6, 772 August12,2018 1, 590 2, 837 1, 045 1, 838 2, 635 4, 675 24 24 32 32 56 56 2, 691 4, 731 August19,2018 1, 144 2, 070 640 1, 220 1, 784 3, 290 2 2 2 2 4 4 1, 788 3, 294 518 857 1 1 1 1 519 858 163 169 429 429 592 598 August26,2018 Gr andTot al 238 355 280 502 28, 432 66, 409 25, 524 69, 568 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 53, 956 135, 977 54, 548 136, 575 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 39 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit D Case Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 40 of 122 SAOs submitted for Follow-To-Join Refugees from 23-Oct-17 to 15-Aug-18 23-Oct-17 to 29-Oct-17 30-OCT-17 to 5-Nov-17 6-Nov-17 to 12-Nov-17 13-Nov-17 to 19-Nov-17 20-Nov-17 to 26-Nov-17 27-Nov-17 to 3-Dec-17 4-Dec-17 to 10-Dec-17 11-Dec-17 to 17-Dec-17 18-Dec-17 to 24-Dec-17 25-Dec-17 to 31-Dec-17 1-Jan-18 to 7-Jan-18 8-Jan-18 to 15-Jan-18 15-Jan-18 to 21-Jan-18 22-Jan-18 to 28-Jan-18 29-Jan-18 to 4-Feb-18 5-Feb-18 to 11-Feb-8 12-Feb-18 to 18-Feb-18 19-Feb-18 to 25-Feb-18 26-Feb-18 to 4-Mar-18 5-Mar-18 to 11-Mar-18 12-Mar-18 to 18-Mar-18 19-Mar-18 to 25-Mar-18 26-Mar-18 to 1-Apr-18 2-A r-18 to 8- r-18 9-A r-18 to 15- r-18 16-Apr-18 to 22-Apr-18 23- r-18 to 29- r-18 30- r-18 to 6-Ma 18 7-M -18 to 13-M -18 14-Ma 18 to -18 21-May-18 to 27-May-18 28-Ma 18 to 3-Jun-18 4-Jun-18 to 10-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 to 17-Jun-18 18-Jun-18 to 24-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 to 1-Jul-18 2-Jul-18 to 8-Jul-18 9-Jul-18 to 15-Jul-18 16-Jul-18 to 22-Jul-18 23-Jul-18 to 29-Jul-18 30-Jul-18 to 5-A -18 6-Aug-18 to 12-Aug-18 13-Au -18 to 19-Au -18 20-Au -18 to 26-Au -18 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 41 of 122 27-Aug-18 to 2-Sep-18 3-Sep-18 to 9-Sep-18 10-Sep-18 to 16-Sep-18 17-Sep-18 to 18-Sep-18 Total 8 6 2 1 930 7 3 2 1 601 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 42 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit E 1 case Parameters IGrand Total SAO Domestic Services, CAMINO 1 individual Source: Department of Homeland Security, US. Citizenship and Immigration Database Queried: September 20, 2018 Report Created: September 20, 2018 International Operations Division (IO) Form(s): l-730 Domestic Processing Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Total of EFR-1 Check Requests EFR-1 Check Requests Total of EFR-2 Check Requests EFR-2 Check Requests Data Type(s): l-73O Domestic Processing Cases with Security Checks System: Case and Activity Management for International Operations (CAMINO) 231 107 124 rocessmg R-1 21012 R-1 21115 R-2 l-730 EFR Litigation Stats - Requests 10-22-17 - 10-28-17 10-29-17 - 11-04-17 11-05-17 - 11-11-17 11-12-17 - 11-18-17 11-19-17 - 11-25-17 11-26-17 - 12-02-17 12-03-17 - 12-09-17 12-10-17 - 12-16-17 12-17-17 - 12-23-17 12-24-17 - 12-30-17 12-31-17 - 01-06-18 01-07-18 - 01-13-18 01-14-18 - 01-20-18 01-21-18 - 01-27-18 01-28-18 - 02-03-18 02-04-18 - 02-10-18 02-11-18 - 02-17-18 02-18-18 - 02-24-18 02-25-18 - 03-03-18 03-04-18 - 03-10-18 03-11-18 - 03-17-18 03-18-18 - 03-24-18 03-25-18 - 03-3 1-18 04-01-18 - 04-07-18 04-08-18 - 04-14-18 04-15-18 - 04-2 1-18 04-22-18 - 04-2 8-18 04-29-18 - 05-05-18 05-06-18 - 05-12-18 05-13-18 - 05-19-18 05-20-18 - 05-26-18 05-27-18 - 06-02-18 06-03-18 - 06-09-18 06-10-18 - 06-16-18 06-17-18 - 06-23-18 06-24-18 - 06-30-18 07-01-18 - 07-07-18 07-08-18 - 07-14-18 07-15-18 - 07-2 1-18 07-2 2-18 - 07-2 8-18 07-29-18 - 08-04-18 08-05-18 - 08-11-18 08-12-18 - 08-18-18 08-19-18 - 08-25-18 08-2 6-18 - 09-01-18 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 44 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit F Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 45 of 122 Sec ur i t yChec ksCompl et ed-Oc t ober23,2017-August27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 2, 510 4, 723 1, 980 3, 755 4, 490 8, 478 26 26 58 58 84 84 4, 574 8, 562 Oc t ober29,2017 1, 039 1, 640 1, 077 1, 833 2, 116 3, 473 3 3 4 4 7 7 2, 123 3, 480 November5,2017 1, 331 1, 954 732 1, 170 2, 063 3, 124 7 7 3 3 10 10 2, 073 3, 134 November12,2017 2, 040 3, 356 1, 103 2, 059 3, 143 5, 415 10 10 10 10 3, 153 5, 425 November19,2017 2, 847 5, 077 1, 772 3, 223 4, 619 8, 300 11 11 18 18 4, 637 8, 318 November26,2017 1, 984 3, 369 1, 373 2, 455 3, 357 5, 824 7 7 7 7 3, 364 5, 831 Dec ember3,2017 2, 218 3, 482 1, 425 2, 605 3, 643 6, 087 6 6 6 6 12 12 3, 655 6, 099 Dec ember10,2017 1, 420 2, 024 871 1, 529 2, 291 3, 553 2 2 9 9 11 11 2, 302 3, 564 Dec ember17,2017 2, 357 4, 038 1, 065 1, 853 3, 422 5, 891 4 4 13 13 17 17 3, 439 5, 908 Dec ember24,2017 2, 015 3, 797 651 1, 114 2, 666 4, 911 5 5 5 5 2, 671 4, 916 Dec ember31,2017 2, 497 4, 422 696 1, 160 3, 193 5, 582 3 3 1 1 4 4 3, 197 5, 586 J anuar y7,2018 2, 605 4, 342 2, 202 3, 502 4, 807 7, 844 11 11 1 1 12 12 4, 819 7, 856 J anuar y14,2018 3, 054 4, 980 2, 634 4, 981 5, 688 9, 961 15 15 3 3 18 18 5, 706 9, 979 J anuar y21,2018 1, 003 1, 535 1, 655 3, 213 2, 658 4, 748 11 11 1 1 12 12 2, 670 4, 760 J anuar y28,2018 1, 563 2, 216 2, 327 4, 617 3, 890 6, 833 7 7 7 7 3, 897 6, 840 Febr uar y4,2018 1, 255 1, 979 1, 290 2, 363 2, 545 4, 342 2 2 1 1 3 3 2, 548 4, 345 Febr uar y11,2018 2, 804 4, 465 3, 143 6, 214 5, 947 10, 679 13 14 4 4 17 18 5, 964 10, 697 Febr uar y18,2018 1, 621 2, 557 1, 665 3, 110 3, 286 5, 667 12 12 5 5 17 17 3, 303 5, 684 Febr uar y25,2018 1, 614 2, 661 2, 428 4, 421 4, 042 7, 082 8 8 23 23 31 31 4, 073 7, 113 Mar c h4,2018 2, 530 3, 907 2, 595 4, 301 5, 125 8, 208 25 25 50 50 75 75 5, 200 8, 283 Mar c h11,2018 5, 168 8, 435 4, 476 8, 220 9, 644 16, 655 39 39 53 53 92 92 9, 736 16, 747 Mar c h18,2018 2, 955 5, 010 2, 470 4, 151 5, 425 9, 161 20 20 20 20 40 40 5, 465 9, 201 Mar c h25,2018 4, 375 7, 509 3, 175 5, 446 7, 550 12, 955 24 24 41 41 65 65 7, 615 13, 020 Apr i l1,2018 2, 585 4, 083 1, 895 3, 483 4, 480 7, 566 4 4 22 22 26 26 4, 506 7, 592 Apr i l8,2018 2, 967 4, 744 3, 013 5, 996 5, 980 10, 740 21 21 18 18 39 39 6, 019 10, 779 Apr i l15,2018 1, 563 2, 435 2, 712 5, 271 4, 275 7, 706 6 6 45 45 51 51 4, 326 7, 757 Apr i l22,2018 1, 001 1, 482 2, 872 5, 007 3, 873 6, 489 10 10 21 21 31 31 3, 904 6, 520 Apr i l29,2018 1, 061 1, 654 2, 380 4, 425 3, 441 6, 079 3 3 35 35 38 38 3, 479 6, 117 May6,2018 1, 547 2, 471 2, 635 4, 473 4, 182 6, 944 8 8 49 49 57 57 4, 239 7, 001 May13,2018 1, 187 1, 852 2, 105 3, 473 3, 292 5, 325 6 6 31 31 37 37 3, 329 5, 362 May20,2018 1, 794 2, 824 2, 397 3, 954 4, 191 6, 778 2 2 44 44 46 46 4, 237 6, 824 May27,2018 1, 080 1, 696 1, 412 2, 557 2, 492 4, 253 11 13 24 24 35 37 2, 527 4, 290 J une3,2018 1, 228 1, 978 955 1, 786 2, 183 3, 764 8 8 22 22 30 30 2, 213 3, 794 J une10,2018 1, 209 1, 996 1, 549 2, 804 2, 758 4, 800 7 7 19 19 26 26 2, 784 4, 826 J une17,2018 2, 804 4, 494 1, 875 3, 305 4, 679 7, 799 4 4 14 14 18 18 4, 697 7, 817 J une24,2018 1, 673 2, 628 1, 053 1, 731 2, 726 4, 359 6 7 19 19 25 26 2, 751 4, 385 J ul y1,2018 2, 487 5, 182 1, 065 1, 653 3, 552 6, 835 14 14 33 33 47 47 3, 599 6, 882 J ul y8,2018 2, 043 3, 437 1, 423 2, 634 3, 466 6, 071 10 10 16 16 26 26 3, 492 6, 097 J ul y15,2018 1, 818 3, 355 1, 143 1, 954 2, 961 5, 309 4 4 7 7 11 11 2, 972 5, 320 J ul y22,2018 1, 245 2, 014 910 1, 630 2, 155 3, 644 9 9 25 25 34 34 2, 189 3, 678 J ul y29,2018 1, 069 1, 691 714 1, 211 1, 783 2, 902 6 6 13 13 19 19 1, 802 2, 921 August5,2018 1, 755 2, 956 1, 546 2, 757 3, 301 5, 713 2 2 18 18 20 20 3, 321 5, 733 August12,2018 1, 843 3, 304 1, 679 3, 483 3, 522 6, 787 25 25 39 39 64 64 3, 586 6, 851 August19,2018 1, 596 2, 718 1, 527 2, 721 3, 123 5, 439 10 10 26 26 36 36 3, 159 5, 475 August26,2018 952 1, 573 1, 272 2, 448 2, 224 4, 021 6 6 15 15 21 21 2, 245 4, 042 29, 435 68, 455 27, 689 75, 300 57, 124 143, 755 169 175 447 447 616 622 Gr andTot al *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 7 7 57, 740 144, 377 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 46 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit G 1 case Parameters IGrand Total SAO Domestic Services, CAMINO Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 1 individual Database Queried: September 20, 2018 Report Created: September 20, 2018 International Operations Division (IO) Form(s): I-730 Domestic Processing Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Total of EFR-1 Check Requests EFR-1 Check Completions Total of EFR-2 Check Requests EFR-2 Check Completions Data Type(s): [-730 Domestic Processing Cases with Security Checks System: Case and Activity Management for International Operations (CAMINO) 209 rocessmg 102 107 R-2 EFRR-2 EFR-1 21117 R-2 EFRR-2 l-730 EFR Litigation Stats -Completions 10-22-17 - 10-28-17 10-29-17 - 11-04-17 11-05-17 - 11-11-17 11-12-17 - 11-18-17 11-19-17 - 11-25-17 11-26-17 - 12-02-17 12-03-17 - 12-09-17 12-10-17 - 12-16-17 12-17-17 - 12-23-17 12-24-17 - 12-30-17 12-31-17 - 01-06-18 01-07-18 - 01-13-18 01-14-18 - 01-20-18 01-21-18 - 01-27-18 01-28-18 - 02-03-18 02-04-18 - 02-10-18 02-11-18 - 02-17-18 02-18-18 - 02-24-18 02-25-18 - 03-03-18 03-04-18 - 03-10-18 03-11-18 - 03-17-18 03-18-18 - 03-24-18 03-25-18 - 03-3 1-18 04-01-18 - 04-07-18 04-08-18 - 04-14-18 04-15-18 - 04-21-18 04-22-18 - 04-28-18 04-29-18 - 05-05-18 05-06-18 - 05-12-18 05-13-18 - 05-19-18 05-20-18 - 05-26-18 05-27-18 - 06-02-18 06-03-18 - 06-09-18 06-10-18 - 06-16-18 06-17-18 - 06-23-18 06-24-18 - 06-30-18 07-01-18 - 07-07-18 07-08-18 - 07-14-18 07-15-18 - 07-21-18 07-22-18 - 07-28-18 07-29-18 - 08-04-18 08-05-18 - 08-11-18 08-12-18 - 08-18-18 08-19-18 - 08-25-18 08-2 6-18 - 09-01-18 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 48 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Supplement to Exhibits E & G Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 49 of 122 EFR Weekly Stats Date Parameters: Case Type: 07/25/2017 - 09/26/2018 Refuge / I-590 Cases Requested Week EFR 1 Results Count of Case Number 2017 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 51 52 2018 1 6 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 16 Week 890 326 295 55 226 427 68 36 22 7 1 1 86 8 14 1 58 120 20 3 11 5 43 5 29 EFR 2 Results Count of Case Number 2017 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2018 1 2 Week 129 98 52 51 48 103 67 28 14 51 45 22 35 23 55 40 72 39 75 30 50 27 3 7 33 Count of Case Number 2017 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2018 1 2 153 32 29 47 33 32 21 26 20 16 8 9 23 26 25 28 25 14 27 14 16 12 8 15 9 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 50 of 122 17 18 19 29 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 Grand Total 214 4 1 117 12 3 7 2 8 3 29 16 3173 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Grand Total 26 88 25 6 40 32 70 69 9 3 33 31 61 33 113 53 58 28 54 63 74 38 92 22 93 25 11 5 7 5 4 5 2 36 9 2520 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 Grand Total 1 10 4 10 7 10 5 6 9 23 13 16 5 15 8 7 53 65 62 66 44 50 46 30 1 75 28 13 1 1 10 7 2 31 33 1435 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 51 of 122 Note: Weeks are listed 1-52 by calendar year where 01 Jan - 07 Jan is week 1. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 52 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit H 11/07/17 - 11/13/17 11/14/17 - 11/20/17 11/21/17 - 11/27/17 11/28/17 - 12/04/17 12/05/17 - 12/11/17 12/12/17 - 12/18/17 12/19/17 - 12/25/17 12/26/17 - 01/01/18 01/02/18 - 01/08/18 01/09/18 - 01/15/18 01/16/18 - 01/22/18 01/23/18 - 01/29/18 01/30/18 - 02/05/18 02/06/18 - 02/12/18 02/13/18 - 02/19/18 02/20/18 - 02/26/18 02/27/18 - 03/05/18 03/06/18 - 03/12/18 03/13/18 - 03/19/18 03/20/18 - 03/26/18 03/27/18 - 04/02/18 04/03/18 - 04/09/18 04/10/18 - 04/16/18 04/17/18 - 04/23/18 04/24/18 - 04/30/18 05/01/18 - 05/07/18 05/08/18 - 05/14/18 05/15/18 - 05/21/18 05/22/18 - 05/28/18 05/29/18 - 06/04/18 06/05/18 - 06/11/18 06/12/18 - 06/18/18 06/19/18 - 06/25/18 06/26/18 - 07/02/18 07/03/18 - 07/09/18 07/10/18 - 07/16/18 07/17/18 - 07/23/18 07/24/18 - 07/30/18 07/31/18 - 08/06/18 08/07/18 - 08/13/18 08/14/18 - 08/20/18 08/21/18 - 08/27/18 7 19 26 8 38 46 15 32 47 14 40 54 12 45 57 3 41 44 13 41 54 5 26 31 17 34 51 17 37 54 11 14 25 4 18 22 12 36 48 8 33 41 4 15 19 6 37 43 11 47 58 13 9 22 9 32 41 7 40 47 7 35 42 7 37 44 2 32 34 15 15 30 10 57 67 6 33 39 3 32 35 19 19 38 18 46 64 5 45 50 5 30 35 7 24 31 2 25 27 12 44 56 11 39 50 7 44 51 3 35 38 6 36 42 1 36 37 8 30 38 3 33 36 10 18 28 4 28 32 2 369 35 1442 37 1811 1 case = 1 individual 1) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the report is generated. 2) Duplicate cases have been removed. Database Queried: September 6, 2018 Report Created: September 10, 2018 System: C3 Consolidated via SMART Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), BW Parameters Form(s): I-730, Refugee Follow-to-Join Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Data Type(s): Receipts by Country of Birth GRAND TOTAL 10/31/17 - 11/06/17 SAO Countries Subtotal Non-SAO Countries Subtotal Grand Total 10/24/17 - 10/30/17 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 53 of 122 11/07/17 - 11/13/17 11/14/17 - 11/20/17 11/21/17 - 11/27/17 11/28/17 - 12/04/17 12/05/17 - 12/11/17 12/12/17 - 12/18/17 12/19/17 - 12/25/17 12/26/17 - 01/01/18 01/02/18 - 01/08/18 01/09/18 - 01/15/18 01/16/18 - 01/22/18 01/23/18 - 01/29/18 01/30/18 - 02/05/18 02/06/18 - 02/12/18 02/13/18 - 02/19/18 02/20/18 - 02/26/18 02/27/18 - 03/05/18 03/06/18 - 03/12/18 03/13/18 - 03/19/18 03/20/18 - 03/26/18 03/27/18 - 04/02/18 04/03/18 - 04/09/18 04/10/18 - 04/16/18 04/17/18 - 04/23/18 04/24/18 - 04/30/18 05/01/18 - 05/07/18 05/08/18 - 05/14/18 05/15/18 - 05/21/18 05/22/18 - 05/28/18 05/29/18 - 06/04/18 06/05/18 - 06/11/18 06/12/18 - 06/18/18 06/19/18 - 06/25/18 06/26/18 - 07/02/18 07/03/18 - 07/09/18 07/10/18 - 07/16/18 07/17/18 - 07/23/18 07/24/18 - 07/30/18 07/31/18 - 08/06/18 08/07/18 - 08/13/18 08/14/18 - 08/20/18 08/21/18 - 08/27/18 7 19 26 10 36 46 15 32 47 17 37 54 12 45 57 3 41 44 11 43 54 6 25 31 18 33 51 21 33 54 12 13 25 5 17 22 12 36 48 7 34 41 4 15 19 13 30 43 15 43 58 14 8 22 13 28 41 5 33 38 7 35 42 13 31 44 3 31 34 15 15 30 10 57 67 7 32 39 7 28 35 21 17 38 18 46 64 5 45 50 5 30 35 8 23 31 5 22 27 18 38 56 13 37 50 11 40 51 8 30 38 7 35 42 1 36 37 8 30 38 5 31 36 10 18 28 3 29 32 2 430 35 1381 37 1811 1 case = 1 individual 1) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the report is generated. 2) Duplicate cases have been removed. Database Queried: September 6, 2018 Report Created: September 10, 2018 System: C3 Consolidated via SMART Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), BW Parameters Form(s): I-730, Refugee Follow-to-Join Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Data Type(s): Receipts by Country of Citizenship GRAND TOTAL 10/31/17 - 11/06/17 SAO Countries Subtotal Non-SAO Countries Subtotal Grand Total 10/24/17 - 10/30/17 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 54 of 122 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 55 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit I Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 56 of 122 SAO Files To Worldwide Worldwide NATIONALS Post/ Week CASES Applicants TOTAL 2017-43 1 1 0 2017-48 2 2 0 2018-09 1 1 1 2018-11 4 4 4 2018-12 1 1 1 2018-15 1 1 0 2018-16 3 3 0 2018-19 1 1 0 2018-21 4 4 1 2018-24 65 65 3 2018-25 7 7 0 2018-29 2 2 1 2018-35 1 1 0 Total 93 93 11 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 57 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit J Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 58 of 122 DHSI nt er vi ewed-Oc t ober23,2017t oAugust27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es SubTot al Cases I nds FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Cases Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 1 1 1 1 I nds Cases I nds 1 1 Oc t ober29,2017 13 32 13 32 13 32 November05,2017 12 38 12 38 12 38 November12,2017 71 121 November19,2017 103 125 November26,2017 322 Dec ember03,2017 71 121 71 121 105 127 105 127 796 322 796 322 796 498 1, 337 498 1, 337 498 1, 337 Dec ember10,2017 552 1, 719 552 1, 719 552 1, 719 Dec ember17,2017 155 305 155 305 155 305 Dec ember24,2017 1 2 1 2 1 2 Dec ember31,2017 52 70 52 70 52 70 J anuar y07,2018 159 190 1 1 160 191 165 197 J anuar y14,2018 119 164 1 2 120 166 120 166 J anuar y21,2018 147 225 147 225 147 225 J anuar y28,2018 208 468 208 468 3 3 3 3 211 471 Febr uar y04,2018 473 1, 381 473 1, 381 11 11 11 11 484 1, 392 Febr uar y11,2018 692 1, 820 14 37 706 1, 857 1 1 1 1 707 1, 858 Febr uar y18,2018 260 634 8 16 268 650 268 650 Febr uar y25,2018 141 218 10 13 151 231 156 236 Mar c h04,2018 111 232 43 94 154 326 154 326 Mar c h11,2018 70 168 32 69 102 237 109 244 Mar c h18,2018 82 176 21 21 103 197 103 197 Mar c h25,2018 98 141 31 31 129 172 15 15 Apr i l01,2018 33 54 52 52 85 106 3 3 Apr i l08,2018 36 53 29 29 65 82 Apr i l15,2018 43 101 43 101 Apr i l22,2018 108 285 108 285 Apr i l29,2018 168 402 25 52 193 454 May06,2018 362 761 91 265 453 1, 026 May13,2018 471 1, 079 96 261 567 1, 340 May20,2018 534 1, 370 82 269 616 1, 639 May27,2018 407 910 60 181 467 1, 091 J une03,2018 416 890 74 229 490 J une10,2018 159 350 51 166 J une17,2018 7 15 6 8 J une24,2018 20 J ul y01,2018 2 J ul y08,2018 2 2 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 15 15 144 187 5 5 90 111 65 82 43 101 306 19 19 21 21 129 22 22 22 22 215 476 453 1, 026 2 2 2 2 569 1, 342 5 5 10 10 626 1, 649 5 5 467 1, 091 1, 119 1 1 1 1 491 1, 120 210 516 6 6 6 6 216 522 13 23 6 6 9 9 15 15 28 38 54 20 54 6 6 11 11 17 17 37 71 7 2 7 4 4 4 4 6 11 8 17 8 17 1 1 32 32 40 49 J ul y15,2018 43 126 15 34 58 160 58 160 J ul y22,2018 32 76 14 19 46 95 46 95 J ul y29,2018 98 244 26 79 124 323 124 323 August05,2018 166 413 55 118 221 531 August12,2018 219 525 88 230 307 755 August19,2018 82 171 28 57 110 August26,2018 20 35 12 22 32 7, 773 18, 300 968 2, 358 8, 741 20, 658 Gr andTot al *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 5 31 8 8 13 17 234 548 13 13 13 13 320 768 228 110 228 57 32 57 8, 949 20, 871 86 9 31 91 122 122 208 213 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 59 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit K Case Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 60 of 122 Case Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 61 of 122 31-2018 32-2018 33-2018 34-2018 35-2018 TOTAL Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 62 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit L 11-05-17 - 11-11-17 11-12-17 - 11-18-17 11-19-17 - 11-25-17 11-26-17 - 12-02-17 12-03-17 - 12-09-17 12-10-17 - 12-16-17 12-17-17 - 12-23-17 12-24-17 - 12-30-17 12-31-17 - 01-06-18 01-07-18 - 01-13-18 01-14-18 - 01-20-18 01-21-18 - 01-27-18 01-28-18 - 02-03-18 02-04-18 - 02-10-18 02-11-18 - 02-17-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 1 case = 1 individual Database Queried: September 17, 2018 Report Created: September 1 8, 2018 System: Case and Activity Management for International Operations (CAMINO) International Operations Division (IO) Parameters Form(s): I-730, Refugee Follow-to-Join Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Data Type(s): I-730 Refugee FTJ Interviews completed by USCIS without RSC support Source: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CAMINO 03-04-18 - 03-10-18 03-11-18 - 03-17-18 03-18-18 - 03-24-18 03-25-18 - 03-31-18 04-01-18 - 04-07-18 04-08-18 - 04-14-18 04-15-18 - 04-21-18 04-22-18 - 04-28-18 04-29-18 - 05-05-18 05-06-18 - 05-12-18 05-13-18 - 05-19-18 05-20-18 - 05-26-18 05-27-18 - 06-02-18 06-03-18 - 06-09-18 06-10-18 - 06-16-18 06-17-18 - 06-23-18 06-24-18 - 06-30-18 07-01-18 - 07-07-18 07-08-18 - 07-14-18 07-15-18 - 07-21-18 07-22-18 - 07-28-18 07-29-18 - 08-04-18 08-05-18 - 08-11-18 08-12-18 - 08-18-18 08-19-18 - 08-25-18 08-26-18 - 09-01-18 4 6 10 02-25-18 - 03-03-18 02-18-18 - 02-24-18 10-29-17 - 11-04-17 I-730 Litigation Stats I-730 Non-SAO SAO Grand Total 10-22-17 - 10-28-17 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 63 of 122 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 17 13 30 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 64 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit M Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 65 of 122 BFRVer i fied-Dec ember23,2017t oJ une20,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Cases Al lRef ugees FTJf r om SAO Count r i es SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 26 88 26 88 26 88 Dec ember31,2017 112 419 112 419 112 419 J anuar y7,2018 151 449 151 449 154 452 J anuar y14,2018 72 255 72 255 72 255 J anuar y21,2018 77 180 77 180 77 180 J anuar y28,2018 37 88 37 88 37 88 Febr uar y4,2018 12 51 12 51 12 51 Febr uar y11,2018 31 91 31 91 31 91 Febr uar y18,2018 18 31 18 31 18 31 Febr uar y25,2018 22 35 22 35 22 35 Mar c h4,2018 23 61 23 61 23 61 Mar c h11,2018 16 43 16 43 16 43 11 28 12 31 12 31 9 37 9 37 9 37 Apr i l1,2018 19 30 19 30 19 30 Apr i l8,2018 9 20 9 20 9 20 Apr i l15,2018 6 19 6 19 6 19 Apr i l22,2018 11 35 11 35 11 35 Apr i l29,2018 6 11 6 11 6 11 May6,2018 4 8 4 8 4 8 May13,2018 5 12 5 12 6 13 May20,2018 4 16 4 16 4 16 May27,2018 7 22 7 22 7 22 J une3,2018 8 18 8 18 8 18 J une10,2018 1 2 1 2 1 2 J une17,2018 3 4 3 4 3 4 678 1, 998 679 2, 001 683 2, 005 1 3 Mar c h25,2018 Gr andTot al 1 3 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Cases SubTot al Dec ember24,2017 Mar c h18,2018 I nds Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * 3 1 4 I nds 3 1 4 Cases 3 1 4 I nds 3 1 4 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 66 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit N Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 67 of 122 DHSCondi t i onal l yAppr oved-Oc t ober23,2017t oAugust27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 3 4 30 62 33 66 Oc t ober29,2017 22 59 71 208 93 267 Cases I nds FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Cases 1 Al lRef ugees SubTot al I nds 1 Cases 1 I nds 1 Cases I nds 33 66 94 268 November5,2017 15 48 34 108 49 156 49 156 November12,2017 222 446 77 167 299 613 299 613 November19,2017 55 95 7 16 62 111 62 111 November26,2017 416 1, 162 118 182 534 1, 344 534 1, 344 Dec ember3,2017 440 1, 598 1 3 441 1, 601 441 1, 601 Dec ember10,2017 482 1, 695 29 116 511 1, 811 511 1, 811 Dec ember17,2017 121 306 22 72 143 378 143 378 Dec ember24,2017 8 34 1 2 9 36 9 36 Dec ember31,2017 16 25 13 37 29 62 J anuar y7,2018 53 93 1 1 54 94 J anuar y14,2018 65 169 7 27 72 J anuar y21,2018 111 208 20 63 131 J anuar y28,2018 189 519 17 43 206 562 206 562 Febr uar y4,2018 381 1, 230 381 1, 230 3 3 3 3 384 1, 233 Febr uar y11,2018 515 1, 433 12 49 527 1, 482 10 10 10 10 537 1, 492 Febr uar y18,2018 206 567 3 8 209 575 209 575 Febr uar y25,2018 153 331 8 22 161 353 166 358 Mar c h4,2018 85 182 26 39 111 221 111 221 Mar c h11,2018 71 179 92 225 163 404 170 411 Mar c h18,2018 45 107 4 4 49 111 49 111 Mar c h25,2018 103 222 4 4 107 226 8 8 8 8 115 234 Apr i l1,2018 62 163 4 14 66 177 3 3 3 3 69 180 Apr i l8,2018 73 204 1 1 74 205 74 205 Apr i l15,2018 43 97 43 97 43 97 Apr i l22,2018 103 305 20 79 123 384 16 16 16 16 139 400 Apr i l29,2018 206 483 18 41 224 524 10 10 10 10 234 534 May6,2018 324 675 14 50 338 725 338 725 May13,2018 414 1, 082 29 84 443 1, 166 May20,2018 455 1, 174 17 41 472 1, 215 7 7 May27,2018 415 918 40 165 455 1, 083 2 2 J une3,2018 353 736 45 212 398 J une10,2018 268 576 37 146 29 62 59 100 196 72 196 271 131 271 5 7 6 5 5 5 7 7 6 5 7 2 2 2 2 445 1, 168 3 3 10 10 482 1, 225 2 2 457 1, 085 948 398 948 305 722 305 722 J une17,2018 24 76 17 76 41 152 J une24,2018 119 371 14 29 133 400 J ul y1,2018 26 82 24 44 50 126 J ul y8,2018 27 73 10 24 37 97 J ul y15,2018 62 144 213 582 275 J ul y22,2018 37 108 9 26 46 J ul y29,2018 90 253 18 57 August5,2018 226 604 11 August12,2018 231 610 August19,2018 140 290 August26,2018 25 7, 500 Gr andTot al 5 2 2 6 6 47 158 4 4 4 4 137 404 3 3 53 129 9 9 46 106 726 275 726 134 46 134 108 310 108 310 42 237 646 239 648 15 60 246 670 246 670 19 65 159 355 159 355 57 26 40 51 97 51 97 19, 793 1, 198 3, 336 8, 698 23, 129 8, 804 23, 236 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and 4 3 4 3 9 1 58 1 59 1 48 9 1 48 2 106 2 107 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 68 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit O Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 69 of 122 DHSDeni ed-Oc t ober23,2017t oAugust27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om nonSAOCount r i es Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 Ref ugeesf r om SAO Count r i es Al lRef ugees Cases I nds Cases I nds 4 14 4 14 Oc t ober29,2017 3 14 18 38 21 52 November5,2017 2 3 1 6 3 9 November12,2017 29 37 4 6 33 43 November19,2017 116 132 3 3 119 135 83 106 6 21 89 127 Dec ember3,2017 132 193 52 107 184 300 Dec ember10,2017 100 153 7 23 107 176 Dec ember17,2017 45 51 2 12 47 63 November26,2017 Dec ember24,2017 2 2 3 3 5 5 Dec ember31,2017 31 35 3 14 34 49 J anuar y7,2018 96 105 13 38 109 143 J anuar y14,2018 64 81 4 12 68 93 J anuar y21,2018 64 77 4 16 68 93 J anuar y28,2018 62 120 62 120 Febr uar y4,2018 69 186 28 65 97 251 Febr uar y11,2018 18 69 2 2 20 71 Febr uar y18,2018 2 8 25 42 27 50 Febr uar y25,2018 9 17 4 8 13 25 Mar c h4,2018 14 34 27 44 41 78 Mar c h11,2018 18 36 17 31 35 67 Mar c h18,2018 13 35 7 18 20 53 Mar c h25,2018 9 24 6 12 15 36 Apr i l1,2018 6 19 3 3 9 22 Apr i l8,2018 9 26 8 8 17 34 Apr i l15,2018 9 26 9 26 Apr i l22,2018 39 40 44 69 83 109 Apr i l29,2018 16 25 13 30 29 55 May6,2018 37 115 167 443 204 558 May13,2018 120 377 215 671 335 1, 048 May20,2018 44 92 8 30 52 122 May27,2018 30 65 5 6 35 71 J une3,2018 37 68 8 17 45 85 J une10,2018 33 70 1 4 34 74 J une17,2018 6 7 909 2, 728 915 2, 735 J une24,2018 12 21 10 13 22 34 J ul y1,2018 5 16 5 16 J ul y8,2018 6 8 1 1 7 9 J ul y15,2018 9 23 3 5 12 28 J ul y22,2018 15 37 4 8 19 45 J ul y29,2018 15 29 1 4 16 33 August5,2018 15 29 6 8 21 37 August12,2018 20 33 5 12 25 45 August19,2018 29 70 13 49 42 119 August26,2018 15 23 15 23 1, 508 2, 737 3, 172 7, 381 Gr andTot al 1, 664 4, 644 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 70 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit P Parameters Form(s): I-730, Refugee Follow-to-Join Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Data Type(s): Denials by Country of Birth 10/31/17 - 11/06/17 11/07/17 - 11/13/17 11/14/17 - 11/20/17 11/21/17 - 11/27/17 11/28/17 - 12/04/17 12/05/17 - 12/11/17 12/12/17 - 12/18/17 12/19/17 - 12/25/17 12/26/17 - 01/01/18 01/02/18 - 01/08/18 01/09/18 - 01/15/18 01/16/18 - 01/22/18 01/23/18 - 01/29/18 01/30/18 - 02/05/18 02/06/18 - 02/12/18 02/13/18 - 02/19/18 02/20/18 - 02/26/18 02/27/18 - 03/05/18 03/06/18 - 03/12/18 03/13/18 - 03/19/18 03/20/18 - 03/26/18 03/27/18 - 04/02/18 04/03/18 - 04/09/18 04/10/18 - 04/16/18 04/17/18 - 04/23/18 04/24/18 - 04/30/18 05/01/18 - 05/07/18 05/08/18 - 05/14/18 05/15/18 - 05/21/18 05/22/18 - 05/28/18 05/29/18 - 06/04/18 06/05/18 - 06/11/18 06/12/18 - 06/18/18 06/19/18 - 06/25/18 06/26/18 - 07/02/18 07/03/18 - 07/09/18 07/10/18 - 07/16/18 07/17/18 - 07/23/18 07/24/18 - 07/30/18 07/31/18 - 08/06/18 08/07/18 - 08/13/18 08/14/18 - 08/20/18 08/21/18 - 08/27/18 GRAND TOTAL SAO Countries Subtotal Non-SAO Countries Subtotal Grand Total 10/24/17 - 10/30/17 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 71 of 122 1 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 4 3 7 0 2 2 3 2 5 4 19 23 1 4 5 3 11 14 2 6 8 0 6 6 3 6 9 3 5 8 3 11 14 7 6 13 0 8 8 1 10 11 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 6 7 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 1 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 13 13 2 2 4 0 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 6 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 155 214 1 case = 1 individual 1) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the report is generated. 2) Duplicate cases have been removed. Database Queried: September 6, 2018 Report Created: September 10, 2018 System: C3 Consolidated via SMART Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), BW Parameters Form(s): I-730, Refugee Follow-to-Join Cases Time Period(s): 10/24/2017 to 8/27/2018 Data Type(s): Denials by Country of Citizenship 10/31/17 - 11/06/17 11/07/17 - 11/13/17 11/14/17 - 11/20/17 11/21/17 - 11/27/17 11/28/17 - 12/04/17 12/05/17 - 12/11/17 12/12/17 - 12/18/17 12/19/17 - 12/25/17 12/26/17 - 01/01/18 01/02/18 - 01/08/18 01/09/18 - 01/15/18 01/16/18 - 01/22/18 01/23/18 - 01/29/18 01/30/18 - 02/05/18 02/06/18 - 02/12/18 02/13/18 - 02/19/18 02/20/18 - 02/26/18 02/27/18 - 03/05/18 03/06/18 - 03/12/18 03/13/18 - 03/19/18 03/20/18 - 03/26/18 03/27/18 - 04/02/18 04/03/18 - 04/09/18 04/10/18 - 04/16/18 04/17/18 - 04/23/18 04/24/18 - 04/30/18 05/01/18 - 05/07/18 05/08/18 - 05/14/18 05/15/18 - 05/21/18 05/22/18 - 05/28/18 05/29/18 - 06/04/18 06/05/18 - 06/11/18 06/12/18 - 06/18/18 06/19/18 - 06/25/18 06/26/18 - 07/02/18 07/03/18 - 07/09/18 07/10/18 - 07/16/18 07/17/18 - 07/23/18 07/24/18 - 07/30/18 07/31/18 - 08/06/18 08/07/18 - 08/13/18 08/14/18 - 08/20/18 08/21/18 - 08/27/18 GRAND TOTAL SAO Countries Subtotal Non-SAO Countries Subtotal Grand Total 10/24/17 - 10/30/17 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 72 of 122 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 5 7 0 2 2 3 2 5 9 14 23 1 4 5 4 10 14 3 5 8 3 3 6 4 5 9 4 4 8 3 11 14 7 6 13 0 8 8 1 10 11 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 13 13 1 3 4 0 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 6 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 150 214 1 case = 1 individual 1) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the report is generated. 2) Duplicate cases have been removed. Database Queried: September 6, 2018 Report Created: September 10, 2018 System: C3 Consolidated via SMART Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), BW Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 73 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit Q Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 74 of 122 Assur ed-Oc t ober23,2017t oAugust27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) SubTot al FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 130 347 20 57 150 404 17 40 13 21 30 61 180 465 Oc t ober29,2017 102 272 17 49 119 321 13 21 8 13 21 34 140 355 November5,2017 153 465 23 46 176 511 15 35 9 17 24 52 200 563 November12,2017 152 426 14 27 166 453 17 30 11 38 28 68 194 521 November19,2017 124 332 34 83 158 415 18 27 2 5 20 32 178 447 November26,2017 279 654 29 74 308 728 10 16 10 15 20 31 328 759 Dec ember3,2017 160 456 8 17 168 473 9 18 4 9 13 27 181 500 Dec ember10,2017 170 351 17 47 187 398 9 17 2 5 11 22 198 420 Dec ember17,2017 185 525 20 38 205 563 7 7 3 9 10 16 215 579 Dec ember24,2017 137 376 26 88 163 464 5 8 2 4 7 12 170 476 Dec ember31,2017 210 529 112 419 322 948 10 11 3 3 13 14 335 962 J anuar y7,2018 197 535 151 449 348 984 13 27 31 48 44 75 392 1, 059 J anuar y14,2018 88 288 72 255 160 543 6 9 7 20 13 29 173 572 J anuar y21,2018 246 631 77 180 323 811 13 14 20 45 33 59 356 870 J anuar y28,2018 262 705 37 88 299 793 17 25 6 10 23 35 322 828 Febr uar y4,2018 255 740 12 51 267 791 10 23 7 11 17 34 284 825 Febr uar y11,2018 221 584 31 91 252 675 17 40 1 5 18 45 270 720 Febr uar y18,2018 144 403 18 31 162 434 15 28 4 6 19 34 181 468 Febr uar y25,2018 143 456 22 35 165 491 6 9 1 1 7 10 172 501 Mar c h4,2018 220 675 23 61 243 736 5 20 5 20 248 756 Mar c h11,2018 158 392 16 43 174 435 2 6 2 6 176 441 Mar c h18,2018 129 394 11 28 140 422 1 1 1 1 141 423 Mar c h25,2018 179 607 9 37 188 644 5 7 5 7 193 651 Apr i l1,2018 329 908 19 30 348 938 Apr i l8,2018 338 990 9 20 347 1, 010 3 Apr i l15,2018 256 761 6 19 262 780 Apr i l22,2018 230 649 11 35 241 684 Apr i l29,2018 200 616 6 11 206 May6,2018 203 540 4 8 May13,2018 182 540 5 May20,2018 155 451 4 May27,2018 174 437 J une3,2018 230 J une10,2018 2 7 2 7 350 945 7 6 6 9 13 356 1, 023 6 11 3 4 9 15 271 795 3 3 2 8 5 11 246 695 627 2 5 2 5 208 632 207 548 4 4 1 1 5 5 212 553 12 187 552 10 11 1 1 11 12 198 564 16 159 467 3 3 2 4 5 7 164 474 7 22 181 459 2 2 1 1 3 3 184 462 619 8 18 238 637 8 11 8 11 246 648 171 425 1 2 172 427 6 6 1 1 7 7 179 434 J une17,2018 182 463 6 10 188 473 3 3 1 1 4 4 192 477 J une24,2018 208 524 4 9 212 533 3 8 2 3 5 11 217 544 J ul y1,2018 181 443 5 8 186 451 2 2 2 2 188 453 J ul y8,2018 317 756 7 19 324 775 1 1 1 1 325 776 J ul y15,2018 402 906 13 16 415 922 4 9 4 9 419 931 J ul y22,2018 312 683 9 16 321 699 1 2 J ul y29,2018 280 642 13 14 293 656 August5,2018 339 825 9 25 348 850 August12,2018 345 747 12 22 357 769 2 2 August19,2018 282 702 9 14 291 716 2 August26,2018 44 117 2 2 46 119 8, 685 22, 775 903 2, 488 9, 588 25, 263 Gr andTot al 2 2 3 4 324 703 1 1 1 1 294 657 1 2 1 2 349 852 1 1 3 3 360 772 3 2 3 293 719 1 2 1 2 47 121 258 438 417 732 10, 005 25, 995 159 294 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 75 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit R Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 76 of 122 Ar r i ved-Oc t ober23,2017t oAugust27,2018 Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) Ref ugeesf r om Ref ugeesf r om SAO nonSAOCount r i es Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es SubTot al FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Oc t ober22,2017 75 202 47 92 122 294 9 15 2 2 11 17 133 311 Oc t ober29,2017 16 35 16 35 16 35 November5,2017 152 328 152 328 11 27 3 3 14 30 166 358 November12,2017 120 324 120 324 8 11 3 9 11 20 131 344 November19,2017 172 386 172 386 1 1 1 1 2 2 174 388 November26,2017 281 718 281 718 6 11 4 4 10 15 291 733 Dec ember3,2017 277 733 277 733 2 4 2 4 279 737 Dec ember10,2017 336 793 336 793 1 1 1 1 2 2 338 795 Dec ember17,2017 258 678 258 678 3 6 1 1 4 7 262 685 Dec ember31,2017 32 92 32 92 32 92 J anuar y7,2018 46 109 46 109 46 109 J anuar y14,2018 182 477 3 4 185 481 9 12 3 9 12 21 197 502 J anuar y21,2018 214 449 3 4 217 453 2 2 4 6 6 8 223 461 J anuar y28,2018 147 369 2 2 149 371 4 6 5 8 9 14 158 385 Febr uar y4,2018 168 470 3 5 171 475 4 5 3 3 7 8 178 483 Febr uar y11,2018 203 486 2 3 205 489 21 35 15 22 36 57 241 546 Febr uar y18,2018 195 461 1 1 196 462 17 24 15 27 32 51 228 513 Febr uar y25,2018 121 299 2 3 123 302 5 9 2 3 7 12 130 314 Mar c h4,2018 126 337 1 2 127 339 7 19 3 3 10 22 137 361 Mar c h11,2018 227 564 1 1 228 565 10 16 3 3 13 19 241 584 Mar c h18,2018 160 431 3 3 163 434 14 21 10 20 24 41 187 475 Mar c h25,2018 172 389 4 7 176 396 3 5 3 5 179 401 Apr i l1,2018 110 305 3 3 113 308 7 16 20 122 328 Apr i l8,2018 126 390 126 390 1 1 Apr i l15,2018 114 318 1 1 115 319 9 Apr i l22,2018 182 526 182 526 Apr i l29,2018 100 313 103 May6,2018 162 424 May13,2018 159 394 May20,2018 141 400 May27,2018 207 541 J une3,2018 199 J une10,2018 167 J une17,2018 172 402 2 J une24,2018 156 426 J ul y1,2018 64 J ul y8,2018 212 J ul y15,2018 J ul y22,2018 2 4 9 1 1 127 391 14 3 8 12 22 127 341 7 16 4 10 11 26 193 552 318 2 2 1 6 3 8 106 326 162 424 4 5 4 5 166 429 159 394 1 8 1 8 160 402 141 400 17 48 4 14 21 62 162 462 210 546 3 7 3 7 213 553 553 199 553 1 1 1 1 200 554 493 167 493 1 4 1 4 168 497 2 174 404 1 1 1 1 175 405 6 9 162 435 3 6 3 6 165 441 196 1 2 65 198 1 1 1 1 594 1 1 213 595 213 526 4 5 217 531 4 9 4 203 508 6 10 209 518 3 5 4 5 1 1 3 3 92 234 August5,2018 123 301 August12,2018 100 274 1 August19,2018 144 423 6, 826 17, 671 J ul y29,2018 Gr andTot al 5 5 96 239 123 301 4 101 278 4 10 148 433 2 2 111 189 6, 937 17, 860 202 365 1 96 1 180 66 199 213 595 9 221 540 3 5 212 523 1 1 97 240 123 301 1 1 102 279 2 2 150 435 298 545 7, 235 18, 405 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 77 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit S Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 78 of 122 Quarter FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q1 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q2 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 Location Egypt Kazakhstan Jordan Iraq Thailand China Lebanon Nepal Rwanda Moldova Sri Lanka Cuba Kenya Denmark Tajikistan Ecuador Germany China Guatemala Zimbabwe Pakistan Turkey Kenya Malaysia Iraq Ukraine Tanzania Indonesia Belarus Russia Kenya India Other Other South Africa Trinidad and Tobago El Salvador Honduras Israel UAE Austria Laos Curaçao Ethiopia Egypt Algeria Djibouti Jordan Iraq Thailand Lebanon Nepal Moldova Sri Lanka Cuba Kenya Cameroon Botswana Malawi Ecuador Chad China Guatemala Slovakia India Pakistan Turkey Indonesia Uganda Zambia Malaysia Iraq Ukraine Tanzania Malta Russia India Mauritania Other Other Pakistan Morocco El Salvador Lebanon Virgin Islands Honduras Romania Ukraine UAE Austria Jordan Iraq Thailand China Lebanon Nepal Rwanda South Africa Sri Lanka Cuba Kenya Ecuador Chad Guatemala Slovakia Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from non-SAO Countries Cases Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from non-SAO Countries Inds 30 7 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from SAO Countries Cases 44 15 277 4 740 4 1 686 1 11 16 3 1 2040 1 31 26 7 12 93 31 209 8 176 62 34 63 454 8 508 175 83 167 1,143 9 575 36 1 594 239 26 19 2240 58 1 1,562 519 61 42 12 19 409 91 16 97 37 31 426 102 17 13 273 61 9 43 24 526 104 15 51 418 5 1085 1 9 18 404 55 6 96 82 229 14 11 962 6 2454 3 20 32 951 170 12 334 185 696 23 11 205 29 160 1 70 504 611 72 241 1 182 1,155 26 544 79 527 14 43 1 51 3 44 492 56 2171 89 1,442 37 51 1 130 4 44 554 107 9 2 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from SAO Countries Inds Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Sub Total Cases 281 874 763 621 4 2,358 1,710 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 303 1 796 4 0 1 11 0 1 14 1 1 817 229 59 47 2 2 2,084 730 103 206 0 18 0 21 157 1 7 344 1 28 78 4 229 4 2 2 360 3 1 282 363 3 16 187 852 19 209 0 2 2 626 3 2 928 1182 3 44 705 2,337 31 557 0 1 811 0 15 0 1 11 18 1 2307 0 44 0 1 34 31 12 2 0 1,207 62 23 3 0 3,161 147 1 35 32 10 0 68 3 1 1 1,476 1 68 102 21 0 78 6 1 1 6,699 0 5 0 12 2 1 5 1 1 260 11 837 19 19 186 0 0 97 5 2 314 2 22 1 445 44 2,264 33 31 462 0 0 408 15 4 1,043 3 82 49 144 112 29 2 252 7 1 744 578 41 557 10 1 1731 1335 140 16 8 78 0 32 2 33 27 175 0 32 2 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Sub Total Inds 311 7 763 621 281 4 1 1 686 1 12 16 306 1 12 93 1 11 8 177 63 851 292 513 47 9 575 54 1 594 396 27 7 42 90 23 409 91 18 2 360 3 14 555 424 12 59 187 852 437 214 1085 1 9 19 1215 55 21 96 83 240 32 11 12 2 205 1,236 222 1 71 539 32 36 544 147 530 15 44 1,477 51 3 49 492 2 1 107 9 2 1 260 11 837 271 26 187 744 578 138 5 18 322 80 22 32 51 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from non-SAO Countries Cases 918 15 2,358 1,710 744 4 2 1 2040 1 32 26 803 4 31 209 1 14 8 510 177 2,167 897 1,246 206 19 2240 79 1 1,562 863 62 28 97 266 35 426 102 19 2 626 3 26 1454 1286 18 95 705 2,337 993 563 2454 3 20 33 3258 170 56 334 186 730 54 11 23 3 611 3,233 388 1 183 1,223 102 77 2171 167 1,448 38 52 6,700 130 4 56 554 5 1 112 29 2 1 445 44 2,264 590 41 463 1731 1335 548 15 37 1,070 178 82 32 146 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from non-SAO Countries Inds 0 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from SAO Countries Cases 0 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from SAO Countries Inds Follow-to-Join (FTJ) Sub Total Cases Follow-to-Join (FTJ) Sub Total Inds 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 57 57 82 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 49 0 49 0 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 All Refugees All Refugees Sub Total Sub Total Cases Inds 311 918 7 15 764 2,359 621 1,710 282 745 4 4 1 2 1 1 686 2040 1 1 12 32 16 26 310 807 1 4 12 31 93 209 1 1 11 14 8 8 177 510 63 177 851 2,167 302 907 513 1,246 47 206 9 19 575 2240 54 79 1 1 594 1,562 478 945 27 62 7 28 42 97 90 266 23 35 409 426 91 102 18 19 2 2 360 626 3 3 14 26 555 1454 424 1286 12 18 59 95 187 705 852 2,337 443 1004 214 563 1085 2454 1 3 9 20 19 33 1270 3313 55 170 21 56 96 334 83 186 240 730 32 54 11 11 12 23 2 3 205 611 1,236 3,233 222 388 1 1 71 183 539 1,223 32 102 36 77 544 2171 147 167 530 1,448 15 38 44 52 1,477 6,700 51 130 3 4 49 56 492 554 2 5 1 1 107 112 9 29 2 2 1 1 260 445 11 44 837 2,264 289 619 26 41 187 463 744 1731 578 1335 138 548 5 15 18 37 328 1,076 80 178 22 82 32 32 51 146 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 79 of 122 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q3 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2016 Q4 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 Pakistan Turkey Indonesia Kenya Togo Malaysia Iraq Uganda Ukraine United Kingdom Tanzania Malta Russia Oman India Other Other Costa Rica El Salvador Zambia Virgin Islands Honduras Iran Romania Austria United Arab Emirates Ghana Ethiopia Egypt Djibouti Jordan Iraq Azerbaijan Thailand China Lebanon Nepal Serbia Republic of the Congo Burundi Sri Lanka Kenya South Africa Malawi Ecuador Guatemala Zimbabwe India Pakistan Israel Turkey Indonesia Zambia Sudan Ghana Malaysia Iraq Kuwait Ukraine Malawi Malta Mexico Russia Burundi India Other Other Namibia Namibia Saudi Arabia Costa Rica El Salvador Nepal Iran Ethiopia Zambia Honduras Mongolia Austria Ghana Egypt Algeria Djibouti Jordan Ethiopia Iraq Bahrain Thailand China Lebanon Nepal Republic of the Congo Argentina Burundi Rwanda Egypt Morocco Moldova Cuba Kenya Qatar Botswana Malawi El Salvador Ecuador Botswana Guatemala Ecuador 179 84 106 723 543 238 171 1633 636 1,730 1655 2 5631 7 1,863 60 606 7,450 90 1,735 30 69 65 5 1,767 115 148 11 1,872 353 201 221 9 32 0 6 105 57 2 0 13 202 80 6 2 229 1 0 442 2 4 58 5 96 33 76 89 38 11 4 480 1 0 990 2 10 135 13 192 118 228 172 47 36 124 32 117 36 47 193 7 319 410 60 309 82 116 511 22 856 37 2 58 8 606 23 25 128 13 70 8 1,689 59 59 42 90 12 92 230 36 1 1,587 90 2 1,774 223 317 42 238 7 619 98 260 8 1 5 2031 109 549 11 60 78 46 6 5306 204 1531 43 118 258 86 1 0 89 2 39 1 943 1 1 0 107 2 107 1 5,157 3 14 14 5 5 567 127 2 221 543 2 884 1,017 930 348 2 543 1592 16 3,249 2,823 25 9 3 0 45 22 3 0 619 27 1 5 1716 67 3 5 2 0 11 1318 39 1 0 20 53 129 104 6 0 24 3523 89 2 0 34 114 387 262 26 29 17 19 1 39 99 1 1 1 1 3 9 20 306 508 51 8 2 1,042 170 821 2 34 7 297 0 154 12 8 4,148 545 2517 5 54 14 870 0 1 1 660 1,848 735 33 4 2,257 94 11 0 0 1 1 3 22 6 2 131 0 24 6 2 300 0 282 2 5 605 32 620 2 5 1401 96 259 459 142 5 12 8 11 680 1,221 236 5 18 19 25 1 128 1 25 1 44 1 1 395 1 50 1 59 2 184 2115 215 1272 11 696 78 1701 2 1 1,863 149 608 39 31 943 66 5 1,767 115 13 201 5 9 567 127 8 326 600 4 884 1,017 2 254 10 3 442 2 4 58 5 715 60 77 94 38 11 2 124 43 1435 75 48 193 27 372 129 104 37 2 84 8 606 23 42 19 43 90 12 1 1 1,587 90 1 317 51 238 7 306 1 51 30 8 1,044 301 821 2 316 9 302 605 32 1 259 459 802 5 12 8 746 33 5 128 1 25 1 44 2 549 5544 375 3164 43 1,848 258 5717 7 1 7,450 197 1,737 107 70 5,157 151 11 1,872 353 13 221 5 32 930 348 15 745 1672 22 3,249 2,823 4 525 23 3 990 2 10 135 13 1908 185 231 177 47 36 6 410 84 3832 171 118 511 56 970 387 262 128 13 99 8 1,689 59 98 99 93 230 36 1 2 1,774 223 3 619 118 260 8 508 3 154 36 14 4,150 845 2517 5 674 16 875 1401 96 1 680 1,221 2,084 5 18 19 2,282 94 12 395 1 50 1 59 3 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 17 0 17 0 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 2115 215 1326 11 696 78 1701 2 1 1,863 149 608 39 31 943 66 5 1,767 115 13 201 5 9 567 127 8 326 600 4 884 1,017 2 262 10 3 442 2 4 58 5 736 60 77 94 38 11 2 124 43 1435 75 48 193 27 372 129 104 37 2 84 8 606 23 42 19 43 90 12 1 1 1,587 90 1 317 51 238 7 306 1 51 30 8 1,044 301 821 2 321 9 302 605 32 1 259 459 802 5 12 8 772 33 5 128 1 25 1 44 2 549 5544 375 3218 43 1,848 258 5717 7 1 7,450 197 1,737 107 70 5,157 151 11 1,872 353 13 221 5 32 930 348 15 745 1672 22 3,249 2,823 4 533 23 3 990 2 10 135 13 1929 185 231 177 47 36 6 410 84 3832 171 118 511 56 970 387 262 128 13 99 8 1,689 59 98 99 93 230 36 1 2 1,774 223 3 619 118 260 8 508 3 154 36 14 4,150 845 2517 5 681 16 875 1401 96 1 680 1,221 2,084 5 18 19 2,308 94 12 395 1 50 1 59 3 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 80 of 122 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q1 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q2 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q3 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 Vietnam Slovakia Pakistan Turkey Indonesia Kenya Uganda Pakistan Rwanda Malaysia Ukraine Malawi Malta Bahrain Philippines Ethiopia Belarus Moldova Russia Lebanon Burundi Kenya Uganda India Other Other Pakistan South Africa Qatar Ecuador Morocco Saudi Arabia Burundi Costa Rica El Salvador Nepal Ethiopia Indonesia Zambia Honduras Iran Romania Mongolia Austria Ethiopia Thailand South Africa Cuba United Arab Emirates Turkey Indonesia Zambia Ukraine Tanzania Russia Kenya India Morocco El Salvador Iran Austria Jordan Thailand Cuba Kenya South Africa China Vietnam China Israel Turkey Uganda Malaysia Iraq Uganda Ukraine Papua New Guinea Russia Kenya Nauru India Other El Salvador Honduras Ethiopia Egypt Jordan Iraq Thailand Malawi Lebanon Nepal Sri Lanka Denmark Botswana Chad Guatemala Zimbabwe Pakistan Kenya Zambia Sudan Malaysia Kuwait Ukraine Malta Papua New Guinea Russia 1 1 31 76 39 92 72 20 256 448 54 3 33 97 184 48 346 316 59 614 1,178 119 6 42 1 2 19 1 339 3 2 46 3 991 185 204 47 15 604 419 146 44 9 3 35 7 38 31 75 35 21 1 1,422 144 274 26 127 229 47 4 1,591 312 655 26 433 259 40 4 1 59 13 5 1 144 4 4 1 307 12 6 3 13 5 10 1,366 15 257 6 3,778 30 796 8 0 41 12 0 83 19 36 7 38 23 1 1 3 1 3 5 136 89 3 3 3 346 193 8 14 4 92 1 3 1 8 323 1 8 1 13 1 1 1 2 1 8 2 3 267 3 17 69 451 7 34 314 2 24 2 0 2 98 3 0 2 12 2 34 7 297 1 9 17 474 1 21 14 2 2 0 3 19 7 4 28 11 48 3 2 0 8 44 26 9 68 30 21 21 6 48 5 9 64 12 15 357 678 506 12 247 247 0 1 1 47 1182 2,563 1562 18 712 712 0 1 4 7 40 2 2 4 2 2 13 32 35 57 72 41 72 67 72 95 4 2 90 37 13 4 211 8 17 1 813 20 18 3 15 18 1 2 4 28 1 2 9 2 2 82 2 6 159 16 176 44 481 1 1 27 240 10 117 25 1 5 1 25 25 1 4 27 648 13 157 68 1 8 4 39 40 1 240 18 3 796 28 1 578 36 3 1923 67 1 0 6 5 78 2 5 10 358 6 0 8 15 231 5 8 12 947 2 23 105 149 5 33 105 443 1 5 31 1,442 54 349 78 20 256 489 66 3 69 7 1 2 20 1 342 1 185 340 136 18 3 3 9 95 1 41 32 8 21 2 1,422 144 274 27 129 229 2 40 4 267 4 76 82 5 2 25 146 4 4 1 309 24 6 3 13 7 297 1 27 1 16 6 2 2 5 101 7 20 204 11 1 1 48 240 16 165 30 1 5 1 40 382 678 507 252 265 250 796 29 1 1 7 6 7 80 6 5 10 390 35 2 64 177 149 1 10 97 3,962 78 1,142 324 59 614 1,261 138 6 80 23 3 2 47 3 994 5 604 765 339 52 14 4 35 330 1 83 36 13 47 5 1,591 312 655 27 441 259 3 95 4 451 9 124 351 13 2 102 214 8 17 1 815 54 18 3 15 17 474 1 49 1 50 12 2 2 14 203 26 53 549 30 1 4 48 648 22 221 80 1 8 4 86 1222 2,563 1563 596 748 715 1923 68 4 6 40 8 17 233 18 8 12 1,004 72 5 100 177 443 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 73 73 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 31 1,442 54 361 78 20 256 489 66 3 69 7 1 2 20 1 342 1 185 440 136 18 3 3 9 95 1 41 32 8 21 2 1,422 144 274 27 129 229 2 40 4 267 4 76 82 5 2 25 146 4 4 1 309 25 6 3 13 7 297 1 27 1 16 6 2 2 5 101 7 20 204 11 1 1 48 240 17 165 30 1 5 1 40 382 678 507 259 265 250 796 29 1 1 7 6 7 80 6 5 10 390 35 2 64 177 149 1 10 97 3,962 78 1,154 324 59 614 1,261 138 6 80 23 3 2 47 3 994 5 604 865 339 52 14 4 35 330 1 83 36 13 47 5 1,591 312 655 27 441 259 3 95 4 451 9 124 351 13 2 102 214 8 17 1 815 55 18 3 15 17 474 1 49 1 50 12 2 2 14 203 26 53 549 30 1 4 48 648 23 221 80 1 8 4 86 1222 2,563 1563 605 748 715 1923 68 4 6 40 8 17 233 18 8 12 1,004 72 5 100 177 443 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 81 of 122 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2017 Q4 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q1 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q2 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q3 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 Kenya Nauru India Other Costa Rica El Salvador Iraq Thailand Nepal Burundi South Africa Moldova Sri Lanka Nepal Guatemala Rwanda Ukraine Tanzania Malta Russia Kenya India Other Morocco Burundi El Salvador Honduras Cote d'Ivoire Algeria Thailand Burundi Rwanda South Africa Malawi Indonesia Saudi Arabia Uganda Malaysia Uganda Ukraine Tanzania Papua New Guinea Russia Kenya Nauru India Namibia Burundi El Salvador Zambia Honduras Israel Ethiopia Egypt Iraq Thailand China Sri Lanka Kenya Malawi Ecuador Pakistan Israel Turkey Kenya Uganda Rwanda Pakistan Rwanda Malaysia Iraq Uganda Ukraine Zambia Papua New Guinea Russia Kenya Uganda Nauru India Other Costa Rica El Salvador Jordan Iraq Thailand China Nepal Kyrgyzstan Burundi Malawi Ecuador Germany China Vietnam Israel Israel Kenya Malaysia Ukraine Russia Kenya Nauru India Niger Other South Africa Costa Rica 13 59 4 24 30 409 0 95 24 151 5 32 26 1 58 1 310 350 20 127 1 11 5 20 55 539 80 31 15 184 146 187 15 65 93 0 99 306 141 120 241 67 136 5 139 13 42 72 373 28 92 2 349 15 16 72 20 59 67 546 0 251 48 483 9 101 70 4 65 1 1,220 1311 26 351 1 19 19 26 170 625 92 80 18 361 454 404 51 204 168 0 225 597 557 281 891 67 350 10 165 21 118 181 465 105 112 2 826 32 37 96 50 1 1 135 11 35 110 3 151 13 5 303 479 102 3 4 295 37 102 221 7 341 43 14 727 894 243 231 1 52 156 60 240 704 538 1 52 364 79 665 14 1 28 40 32 3 58 84 7 1 1 2 1 20 72 16 1 1 10 5 71 157 1 4 1 1 124 127 205 15 1 7 3 1 387 195 560 53 29 12 24 1 2 38 26 24 3 8 1 119 4 1 221 14 95 2 0 0 262 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 3 0 0 33 13 1 0 103 43 5 50 50 59 77 0 0 18 163 139 4 3 0 8 50 540 425 5 3 0 24 5 9 3 85 1 7 199 6 0 0 5 36 0 0 6 128 0 0 80 80 1 14 1 1 28 1 88 73 4 273 108 4 1 28 3 52 1 1 23 2 4 77 6 8 10 2 18 2 2 7 14 178 8 24 30 409 95 97 24 151 5 32 26 1 58 1 310 350 20 127 1 11 5 20 55 539 80 31 18 186 146 187 15 65 126 13 100 306 141 120 241 117 136 5 198 13 42 72 373 28 92 2 367 178 139 41 3 50 9 1 140 11 38 195 4 151 13 5 303 484 36 243 231 1 132 156 61 254 1 14 1 28 40 88 73 11 1 1 2 1 20 73 28 1 4 2 1 147 129 209 15 39 14 24 2 1 2 17 293 34 59 67 546 262 253 48 483 9 101 70 4 65 1 1,220 1311 26 351 1 19 19 26 170 625 92 80 21 364 454 404 51 204 271 43 230 597 557 281 891 117 350 10 242 21 118 181 465 105 112 2 876 572 425 101 3 102 27 4 304 37 109 420 13 341 43 14 727 900 128 704 538 1 132 364 80 693 1 32 3 58 84 273 108 20 1 1 10 5 71 160 52 1 7 4 1 464 201 568 53 56 28 24 7 3 8 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 57 57 85 85 4 8 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 52 52 58 58 15 178 8 24 30 409 95 98 24 151 5 32 26 1 58 1 310 350 20 127 1 11 5 20 55 539 80 31 18 191 146 187 15 65 126 13 100 306 141 120 241 117 136 47 198 13 42 72 373 28 92 2 367 178 139 42 3 50 15 1 140 11 38 195 11 151 13 5 303 484 36 243 231 1 132 156 146 254 1 14 1 28 40 88 73 15 1 1 2 1 20 73 28 1 4 2 1 147 129 209 15 58 39 14 24 2 1 2 18 293 34 59 67 546 262 254 48 483 9 101 70 4 65 1 1,220 1311 26 351 1 19 19 26 170 625 92 80 21 370 454 404 51 204 271 43 230 597 557 281 891 117 350 52 242 21 118 181 465 105 112 2 876 572 425 102 3 102 33 4 304 37 109 420 20 341 43 14 727 900 128 704 538 1 132 364 165 693 1 32 3 58 84 273 108 28 1 1 10 5 71 160 52 1 7 4 1 464 201 568 53 58 56 28 24 7 3 8 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 82 of 122 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 FY 2018 Q4 Grand Total Honduras El Salvador Honduras 11 2 7 43,045 25 7 15 101,166 31,915 93,680 11 2 7 74,960 25 7 15 194,846 211 236 417 417 628 653 11 2 7 75,588 25 7 15 195,499 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 83 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit T Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 84 of 122 Quarter FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q1 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 Location Austria Austria Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Baghdad Iraq - Baghdad Erbil Jordan Lebanon Turkey Malaysia Thailand Kenya Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Cuba El Salvador Guatemala, Honduras Curacao, Trinidad Ecuador Islamabad, Pakistan Kazakhstan / Tajikistan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Lahore, Pakistan Medan, Indonesia Ranong, Thailand Songkla, Thailand Songkla, Thailand South Africa South Africa Sri Lanka Tel Aviv, Israel Vientiane, Laos Vientiane, Laos Zimbabwe Austria Austria Austria Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Baghdad Erbil Iraq - Baghdad Jordan Jordan Jordan Duration 33 27 47 7 50 11 53 25 54 41 44 45 45 44 39 23 34 20 10 16 8 10 12 1 5 2 1 4 8 15 9 12 1 1 15 5 15 28 50 52 8 50 24 28 40 Team Size 2 2 5 8 9 4 13 4 13 6 4 9 9 9 10 3 5 4 2 3 6 2 4 2 4 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 7 11 2 10 17 31 35 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 85 of 122 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 Lebanon Turkey Turkey Malaysia Nepal Thailand Chad Ethiopia Kenya Kenya Tanzania Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala, Honduras Cuba Algeria Botswana Cameroon Djibouti Hong Kong Indonesia Indonesia Islamabad, Pakistan Islamabad, Pakistan Malawi Malaysia Malta Malta Mauritania Morocco Nong Khai, Thailand Pathumthani, Thailand Prachuap Kirikan, Thailand Rachaburi, Thailand Ranchanaburi, Thailand Ranong, Thailand Romania Slovakia Sri Lanka Ukraine Zambia Austria Austria Iraq - Baghdad Erbil Iraq - Baghdad Lebanon 31 41 43 41 47 43 42 51 45 43 46 20 34 15 14 3 7 11 15 5 17 18 14 13 17 12 16 10 5 9 3 6 2 11 2 3 3 4 9 12 13 41 31 45 22 50 29 5 14 19 7 12 4 4 8 10 11 8 4 8 6 2 2 1 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 1 4 3 3 5 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 15 5 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 86 of 122 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 Turkey Turkey Malaysia MY extension Nepal Thailand Chad Kenya Kenya Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda El Salvador (Wave 2) Honduras Cuba El Salvador (Wave 1) Guatemala Ecuador El Salvador (Wave 3) Hong Kong Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia Malaysia Malta Oman Pakistan Ranong, Thailand Ratchaburi, Thailand Romania Slovakia Slovakia South Africa South Africa Sri Lanka Zambia Austria Austria Egypt - Cairo Egypt - Alexandria Iraq - Baghdad Erbil Iraq - Baghdad Jordan Jordan Kuwait Lebanon 46 52 34 14 43 42 19 48 47 31 40 56 58 22 16 21 36 3 20 25 2 13 16 11 12 12 19 3 17 3 5 4 14 30 12 12 31 32 48 7 48 23 45 46 46 18 48 19 20 8 4 8 4 3 10 9 8 8 17 20 15 7 2 10 4 3 16 2 5 4 4 3 3 4 3 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 10 5 9 4 15 16 14 4 5 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 87 of 122 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY16 Q4 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 Lebanon Turkey Turkey UAE Malaysia Nepal Thailand Burundi Ethiopia Kenya El Salvador Guatemala, Honduras Ecuador El Salvador Azerbaijan Bahrain Brazzaville, Congo Chiang Mai, Thailand Djibouti Ghana HatYai, Thailand Indonesia Israel Malawi Malaysia Malta Namibia Pakistan Pathumthani, Thailand Serbia South Africa South Africa Sri Lanka Sudan Tham Hin, Thailand Ukraine Zambia Zimbabwe Jordan Jordan Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Baghdad Iraq - Erbil Lebanon Turkey Austria Austria 46 46 46 20 35 47 36 9 47 44 45 36 22 39 1 1 5 1 1 13 5 11 12 15 33 12 14 16 1 1 12 10 9 51 4 11 15 2 26 55 55 26 23 36 54 26 33 5 14 19 4 5 7 5 3 10 9 12 6 3 14 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 7 2 2 4 4 3 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 1 14 17 14 6 4 5 26 2 2 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 88 of 122 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q1 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 Malaysia Nepal Thailand Burundi, Uganda Ethiopia Kenya, Burundi Kenya, Uganda Kenya Kenya Rwanda El Salvador El Salvador Guatemala, Honduras Ecuador Algeria Bahrain Belarus Botswana Congo Djibouti HatYai, Thailand Indonesia Malawi Malaysia Malta Moldova Morocco Pakistan Pathumthani, Thailand Pathumthani, Thailand Qatar Romania Romania Saudi Arabia Slovakia South Africa Surat Thani, Thailand Ukraine Ukraine Vietnam Zambia Mongolia Austria Austria Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Baghdad Iraq - Baghdad 25 42 34 29 47 56 54 44 45 47 11 58 24 16 7 8 11 2 8 2 3 12 15 14 10 3 5 9 1 4 9 8 4 5 3 14 8 9 7 1 15 2 32 23 45 47 45 10 10 7 5 9 5 9 9 11 12 3 14 5 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 1 3 3 18 14 6 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 89 of 122 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 Chiang Mai, Thailand Chiang Rai, Thailand Ethiopia Indonesia Morocco Phang Nga, Thailand Ranong, Thailand Saudi Arabia South Africa South Africa United Arab Emirates Zambia Iraq - Erbil Israel Malaysia Nauru/PNG Israel Mae La Camp, Thailand Nong Khai, Thailand Pretoria, South Africa Ranong, Thailand Sangkhla, Thailand Songkla, Thailand South Africa Uganda Vietnam Honduras Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Erbil Iraq - Baghdad Nauru Nepal PNG Thailand El Salvador Costa Rica, El Salvador Ban Don Yang, Thailand Botswana Chad Ethiopia Islamabad, Pakistan Kuwait Malawi Malta Ratchaburi, Thailand Sri Lanka Sudan 1 1 3 16 1 4 10 1 5 2 1 1 8 21 34 49 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 48 17 45 37 44 39 38 42 69 9 1 5 14 16 7 5 12 1 10 4 2 2 1 5 2 2 3 1 5 1 2 1 3 4 11 6 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 3 16 4 13 4 9 6 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 4 2 3 2 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 90 of 122 FY17 Q4 FY17 Q4 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q1 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q3 Zambia Zimbabwe Burundi Tanzania El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras El Salvador Malta Moldova Morocco Nepal South Africa Sri Lanka Surat Thani, Thailand Ukraine Malaysia Nauru/PNG Thailand Burundi Uganda Rwanda Tanzania Algeria Indonesia Ivory Coast Johannesburg, South Africa Malawi Namibia Ratchaburi, Thailand Saudi Arabia Ukraine Zambia Turkey Iraq - Baghdad Egypt - Cairo Iraq - Erbil Malaysia Uganda Ethiopia Kenya, Uganda Rwanda Ecuador, El Salvador, Costa Rica Islamabad, Pakistan Israel Mae Hong Son, Thailand Malaysia Sri Lanka Ukraine 2 2 27 31 80 79 4 10 8 3 1 5 1 19 24 57 27 27 27 27 27 5 24 11 5 14 10 5 1 44 11 47 31 48 16 48 47 41 41 41 44 8 12 1 5 10 37 1 1 5 13 4 10 2 2 3 4 1 3 2 7 11 10 5 7 10 10 12 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 6 5 7 3 7 6 7 9 7 5 4 2 2 2 3 8 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 91 of 122 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 FY18 Q4 Zambia Jordan Iraq - Baghdad Iraq - Erbil Morocco Malaysia/Thailand Nauru/PNG Burundi Guinea Togo Rwanda Kenya, Uganda Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador Bahrain Costa Rica Germany Indonesia Kyrgyzstan Malawi Malta Mozambique Niger South Africa Ukraine Ongoing Bangkok, Thailand Ongoing New Delhi, India Ongoing Nairobi, Kenya Ongoing FY16-FY18 Q4 Moscow, Russia Ongoing FY17 only Cuba 4 50 31 16 13 49 42 47 12 12 47 42 31 3 4 11 21 3 11 8 11 18 1 47 No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing 1 8 6 4 2 9 7 7 1 1 7 10 5 1 2 3 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 6 NA NA NA NA NA Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 92 of 122 Ongoing FY17 only Guatemala Ongoing FY17-FY18 El Salvador Ongoing FY17-FY18 China Ongoing FY17-FY18 Amman No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing No circuit ride- inoffice processing NA NA NA NA Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 93 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit U Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 94 of 122 Week Location 1-Jul-18 Israel 1-Jul-18 Russia 1-Jul-18 Kenya 8-Jul-18 Vietnam 8-Jul-18 Russia 8-Jul-18 Kenya 15-Jul-18 Thailand 15-Jul-18 Kyrgyzstan 15-Jul-18 Germany 15-Jul-18 Ukraine 15-Jul-18 Russia 22-Jul-18 Thailand 22-Jul-18 Germany 22-Jul-18 Ukraine 22-Jul-18 India 29-Jul-18 Jordan 29-Jul-18 Iraq 29-Jul-18 Malawi 29-Jul-18 Ecuador 29-Jul-18 Malaysia 29-Jul-18 Ukraine 29-Jul-18 Ecuador 29-Jul-18 Russia 29-Jul-18 India 29-Jul-18 Ecuador 29-Jul-18 Honduras 5-Aug-18 Jordan 5-Aug-18 Iraq 5-Aug-18 Nepal 5-Aug-18 Malawi 5-Aug-18 Ecuador 5-Aug-18 Ecuador 5-Aug-18 Ecuador 5-Aug-18 Kenya 5-Aug-18 Malaysia 5-Aug-18 Ukraine 5-Aug-18 Ecuador 5-Aug-18 Thailand 5-Aug-18 Thailand 5-Aug-18 Kenya 5-Aug-18 Naura 5-Aug-18 Thailand 5-Aug-18 Ecuador 12-Aug-18 Jordan 12-Aug-18 Iraq 12-Aug-18 Thailand 12-Aug-18 China 12-Aug-18 Burundi 12-Aug-18 Ecuador 12-Aug-18 China 12-Aug-18 Ecuador 12-Aug-18 Ecuador 12-Aug-18 Kenya 12-Aug-18 Malaysia 12-Aug-18 Ukraine 12-Aug-18 Kenya 12-Aug-18 Naura 12-Aug-18 India 12-Aug-18 Niger 12-Aug-18 Jordan 12-Aug-18 South Africa 12-Aug-18 Ecuador 12-Aug-18 Thailand 19-Aug-18 Jordan 19-Aug-18 Iraq 19-Aug-18 Israel 19-Aug-18 Kenya 19-Aug-18 Malaysia 19-Aug-18 Ukraine 19-Aug-18 Naura 19-Aug-18 India 19-Aug-18 Niger 19-Aug-18 Honduras 19-Aug-18 El Salvador 19-Aug-18 Honduras 19-Aug-18 Israel 26-Aug-18 Jordan 26-Aug-18 Iraq 26-Aug-18 Malaysia 26-Aug-18 Ukraine 26-Aug-18 Niger 26-Aug-18 Costa Rica Grand Total Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from non-SAO Countries Cases 1 1 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from non-SAO Countries Inds 3 4 4 4 7 10 4 2 28 9 28 4 7 1 20 47 3 1 4 14 1 1 13 3 2 2 44 29 38 10 1 1 7 1 14 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from SAO Countries Inds 13 10 15 34 1 13 1 18 19 6 69 9 1 1 23 26 67 34 1 2 3 4 6 7 68 35 68 8 29 1 29 141 3 4 11 24 2 1 42 7 7 4 140 43 98 25 1 1 9 1 34 1 1 3 1 3 3 79 38 46 1 5 6 1 4 9 246 57 128 15 2 12 15 5 12 1 14 3 33 1 30 12 7 2 10 10 2 7 1 1 51 47 14 2 10 23 7 15 1 10 6 2 2 670 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Refugees from SAO Countries Cases 15 10 2 8 1,614 25 27 2 85 47 2 22 73 6 2 10 2 2 7 1 1 13 10 1 3 1 34 14 1 4 8 8 4 18 4 238 559 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Sub Total Cases 1 1 Refugees (excluding Follow-to-Join) Sub Total Inds 3 4 4 4 7 10 4 2 15 28 9 1 13 28 4 19 6 7 1 20 48 3 1 4 14 1 23 26 1 13 3 2 2 45 31 41 10 1 1 13 10 34 68 35 1 18 68 8 69 9 29 1 29 142 3 4 11 24 2 67 34 1 42 7 7 4 144 49 105 25 1 1 7 1 14 25 27 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 101 38 46 9 1 34 85 47 2 1 5 6 1 4 9 319 57 128 21 4 12 2 1 15 1 13 10 1 1 30 12 11 2 10 10 2 7 1 8 4 10 6 2 2 908 25 7 12 7 3 36 1 34 14 1 1 51 47 22 2 10 23 7 15 1 18 4 15 10 2 8 2,173 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from non-SAO Countries Cases Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from non-SAO Countries Inds 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 10 14 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from SAO Countries Cases 31 8 Follow-to-Join (FTJ) FTJ from SAO Countries Inds Follow-to-Join (FTJ) Sub Total Cases Follow-to-Join (FTJ) Sub Total Inds 4 4 31 32 32 8 1 1 9 2 2 9 2 4 13 13 13 13 52 52 62 66 All Refugees All Refugees Sub Total Sub Total Cases Inds 1 3 1 4 4 4 4 7 4 10 32 32 4 13 2 10 15 34 28 68 9 35 1 1 13 18 28 68 4 8 19 69 6 9 7 29 1 1 20 29 48 142 3 3 1 4 4 11 14 24 1 2 23 67 26 34 1 1 13 42 3 7 2 7 2 4 45 144 31 49 41 105 10 25 2 3 2 3 9 9 7 9 3 5 14 34 25 85 27 47 2 2 1 1 1 5 3 6 1 1 3 4 3 9 101 319 38 57 46 128 13 13 21 25 4 7 12 12 2 7 1 3 15 36 1 1 13 34 10 14 1 1 1 1 30 51 12 47 11 22 2 2 10 10 10 23 2 7 7 15 1 1 8 18 4 4 10 15 6 10 2 2 2 8 970 2,239 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 95 of 122 1 The Honorable James L. Robart 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 JOHN DOE, et al., 10 11 No.: 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Plaintiffs, v. 12 DONALD TRUMP, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SEATTLE, et al., 17 18 Plaintiffs, v. 19 20 21 22 DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. No.: 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS JFS AND JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS (Relating to Both Cases) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33 and the Local Rules of the U.S. 23 24 25 District Court for the Western District of Washington, Defendants provide the following objections and written response to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories 26 to Defendants (“Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories”). Defendants’ objections are based on 27 information known to Defendants at this time, and are made without prejudice to additional 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 1 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 96 of 122 1 objections should Defendants subsequently identify additional grounds for objection. These 2 objections have been formulated in contemplation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), 3 which generally permits discovery of matters not privileged that may be relevant to the claims or 4 5 defenses in a civil action, as well as the limiting instructions set forth in the Court’s July 27, 6 2018, Order Granting Motion for Discovery and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, 7 ECF No. 155 (“July 27 Order”). In presenting these objections, Defendants do not waive any 8 further objection in pretrial motions practice or at trial to the admissibility of evidence on the 9 grounds of relevance, materiality, privilege, competency, or any other appropriate ground. 10 GENERAL OBJECTIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL INTERROGATORIES 11 12 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories to the extent that they seek (a) 13 attorney work product; (b) communications protected by the attorney-client privilege; (c) 14 information protected by the deliberative-process privilege or law enforcement privilege; 15 (d) material the disclosure of which would violate legitimate privacy interests and 16 expectations of persons not party to this litigation; (e) information protected by any form 17 of executive privilege; or (f) information covered by any other applicable privilege or 18 19 protection. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories to the extent they 20 assume that certain types of information exist. By providing these objections, Defendants 21 do not imply that any particular information exists that is responsive to Plaintiffs’ Third 22 Interrogatories. 23 2. Defendants object to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” that accompany Plaintiffs’ 24 25 Third Interrogatories to the extent that these sections attempt to impose obligations 26 beyond the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of 27 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 2 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 97 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories to the extent that the requests seek 2 information that is already publicly available, is already in the custody or control of 3 Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel, is readily accessible to Plaintiffs, or would otherwise be 4 5 6 less burdensome for Plaintiffs to obtain than Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). 7 4. Defendants object to any requests or portions of requests contained within Plaintiffs’ 8 Third Interrogatories that are not narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this 9 case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 10 5. Defendants reserve the right to make further objections as necessary to the extent that 11 12 13 additional issues arise, whether as to the scope of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories or otherwise. OBJECTIONS TO INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL 14 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories insofar as Plaintiffs purport to seek 15 discovery from President Trump. Any such discovery is not narrowly crafted and 16 proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to 17 mootness, given that Plaintiffs’ lawsuits challenge agency-level action rather than 18 19 presidential action and given further that the issues Plaintiffs have raised in prior briefing 20 concern agency-level implementation of policy and the Court’s preliminary injunction. 21 Moreover, discovery propounded on the President and/or his advisers would create an 22 undue burden and distraction from their critical executive responsibilities. See, e.g., 23 Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (“This Court has held, on more 24 25 than one occasion, that ‘[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive 26 . . . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the 27 timing and scope of discovery,’ and that the Executive’s ‘constitutional responsibilities 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 3 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 98 of 122 1 and status [are] factors counseling judicial deference and restraint’ in the conduct of 2 litigation against it . . . .” (alterations in original) (citations omitted)). 3 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories to the extent the interrogatories 4 5 could be construed as requiring each named Defendant, or an authorized representative 6 of each, to answer each and every interrogatory under oath. For each interrogatory, 7 Defendants will identify the appropriate agency or sub-agency, if any, that is able to 8 respond without undue burden, and will designate an appropriate official from each such 9 agency or sub-agency to sign for those interrogatories to which that agency or sub-agency 10 has responded. 11 12 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories to the extent that they suggest that 13 they cure all of the deficiencies that Defendants had previously identified with 14 Interrogatories 15-20 from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 16 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agencies Involved in the USRAP” 17 (paragraph 1) to the extent that definition, which encompasses “all governmental 18 19 agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and international organizations involved in the 20 USRAP,” could be construed to require Defendants to provide information known only 21 to nonparties. Defendants will respond to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories by providing 22 information that is known or can reasonably be ascertained without undue burden by 23 subject-matter experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. 24 25 Department of State, and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, subject to 26 the objections stated in paragraphs (1) through (5) under General Objections that Apply 27 to All Interrogatories. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 4 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 99 of 122 1 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Agency Memo” (paragraph 2) insofar as 2 the definition states that the October 23, 2017, Memorandum to the President was “issued 3 with” Executive Order 13,815. 4 5 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” 6 (paragraph 6), as not proportional to the needs of resolving the mootness issue, as 7 Plaintiffs’ expansive definitions could require Defendants to seek information from all 8 “officers, agents, assigns, employees, insurers, attorneys, subsidiaries, successors, and 9 predecessors, and anyone acting on their behalf,” associated with the Defendant agencies, 10 no matter how minor or incidental their roles. Defendants further object to any 11 12 implication that they are required to provide responsive information supplied by President 13 Trump or other White House officials, for the reasons stated in paragraph (1) under 14 Objections to Introductory Material. Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter 15 experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, 16 and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and will seek information from 17 those appropriate subject-matter experts, keeping in mind the requirements of the Federal 18 19 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its July 27 Order that discovery 20 should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery 21 is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 22 23 4. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Document” and “Documents” (paragraph 7) to the extent the definitions encompass attorney work product or material covered by 24 25 the attorney-client privilege. Defendants further object to the extent the definitions 26 encompass information derived solely from drafts or other such deliberative material. 27 Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “control” to the extent Plaintiffs 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 5 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 100 of 122 1 purport to require Defendants to search for and provide information derived from 2 documents held in the custody of nonparties. Any such expansive request would not be 3 narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited 4 5 to issues pertaining to mootness. 6 5. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Processing of Applications” (paragraph 10) 7 to the extent the definition could be construed to require Defendants to provide 8 information from entities other than the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. 9 Department of State, or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Defendants 10 further object to this definition because Plaintiffs have defined “Processing of 11 12 Applications” to include all stages “until the case is ‘Ready for Departure’” but have 13 sought to include in that definition “arranging travel to the United States.” Arranging 14 travel to the United States, however, is made only after a refugee applicant is “Ready for 15 Departure.” Thus, Defendants have responded to this request using the definition 16 provided by Plaintiffs, with the exception of “arranging travel to the United States.” 17 6. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ vague and ambiguous definition of “Ready for Departure” 18 19 (paragraph 11) to the extent that Plaintiffs construe that term to apply to refugee 20 applicants who are not processed through the Resettlement Support Centers (“RSC”). 21 The Department of State’s Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System 22 (“WRAPS”), a case management system, tracks applicants processed through the RSCs 23 from the time of their referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. WRAPS uses 24 25 the “Ready for Departure” designation to indicate that a given case is approved by U.S. 26 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for refugee admission, that all required 27 security checks are cleared, that medical examinations are completed, and that an 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 6 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 101 of 122 1 assurance from a resettlement agency is received. At the time of the Agency Memo, 2 Defendants did not use the “Ready for Departure” designation in WRAPS to track when 3 an FTJ case not processed by an RSC was ready to begin travel booking. 1 4 OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS 5 6 1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 1 that Defendants “furnish all 7 information” to the extent that instruction could be construed to require Defendants to 8 produce privileged material. 9 Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 1 to furnish any information “contained in or on any Document, that is known 10 or available to You, including all information in the possession of Your attorneys or other 11 12 persons acting on Your behalf or under Your attorney’s employment or direction,” as 13 overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the mootness issue in this case. 14 Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter experts at the U.S. Department of 15 Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and/or the Office of the Director of 16 National Intelligence, who have relevant information, and will provide information 17 supplied by those subject-matter experts, keeping in mind the requirement of the Federal 18 19 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its July 27 Order that discovery 20 should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of this case in which discovery 21 is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. 22 23 2. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 3 that, for any interrogatories to which Defendants are unable to respond fully despite Defendants’ reasonable diligence, 24 25 26 27 28 1 At the time of the Agency Memo, an FTJ refugee applicant not processed by an RSC may have received a WRAPS case number because he or she was partially processed in the WRAPS system, but at that time the “Ready for Departure” designation was not used for the same purposes for these FTJ cases. DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 7 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 102 of 122 1 Defendants must “state what knowledge, information, and belief [Defendants] have 2 concerning the unanswered portion of each such interrogatory,” as this instruction is 3 vague and could be construed to require Defendants to provide incomplete data that 4 5 creates a misimpression as to some aspect or aspects of refugee processing. Defendants 6 will answer those interrogatories to which they are reasonably able to respond without 7 disclosing privileged information and will identify any interrogatories to which they are 8 unable to respond and summarize the reason(s) for such nonresponse. 9 3. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 4 insofar as it seeks information 10 “subject to Your control or ascertainable by You, Your attorneys, or others acting on 11 12 Your behalf upon reasonable inquiry,” as overly broad and not proportional to the needs 13 of the mootness issue in this case. Defendants will identify appropriate subject-matter 14 experts at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, 15 and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who have relevant information, 16 and will provide information supplied by those subject-matter experts, keeping in mind 17 the requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s admonition in its 18 19 July 27 Order that discovery should be narrowly crafted and proportional to the needs of 20 this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining to mootness. Defendants 21 further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 4 insofar as it would require 22 Defendants to provide the names or contact information of third parties not employed by 23 the Defendant agencies. 24 25 4. Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in paragraph 5 to the extent the instruction 26 could be construed as imposing on Defendants an obligation to continually update their 27 responses as new data is generated. Defendants will cabin their responses to data 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 8 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 103 of 122 1 generated between October 23, 2017 (the date on which the Agency Memo took effect), 2 and September 24, 2018 (the date on which Defendants’ subject-matter experts began 3 their data collection efforts). Defendants further object to Plaintiffs’ instruction in 4 5 paragraph 5, as the phrase “any person acting on their behalf obtains additional 6 information” is vague and ambiguous. Defendants understand and will comply with their 7 duty of supplementation within the meaning of Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure. 9 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS 10 The following responses are based upon information currently known to Defendants, and 11 12 13 14 15 16 Defendants reserve the right to amend, supplement, or alter these objections and responses to Plaintiffs’ Third Interrogatories at any time. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 17 Identify the number of cases and refugees who were Ready for Departure on the date of the Agency Memo. 18 OBJECTIONS 19 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to 20 Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 21 22 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 25, as the requested information is overbroad and 23 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 24 to mootness. 25 26 27 28 2 Defendants have replicated Plaintiffs’ use of bolding in these objections, for consistency and clarity. Such replication does not constitute any concession by Defendants that Plaintiffs’ definitions are proper or that the discovery Plaintiffs seek is appropriately tailored to the sole question of mootness for which limited discovery has been authorized. DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 9 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 104 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 25 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee 2 applicants who were not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand at the time of 3 the Agency Memo. The “Ready for Departure” designation applies to cases that are 4 5 processed through WRAPS, and the only FTJ cases processed through WRAPS at the 6 time of the Agency Memo were those processed by RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. See 7 also supra note 1. 8 9 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to 10 the attached Exhibit V. 11 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 14 Identify the number of cases and refugees that were Ready for Departure on the date of the Agency Memo but have been returned to Processing of Applications since the date of the Agency Memo. 15 OBJECTIONS 13 16 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to 17 Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 18 19 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 26, as the requested information is overbroad and 20 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 21 to mootness. 22 23 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 26 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee applicants who were not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand at the time of 24 25 26 the Agency Memo. The “Ready for Departure” designation applies to cases that are processed through WRAPS, and the only FTJ cases processed through WRAPS at the 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 10 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 105 of 122 1 time of the Agency Memo were those processed by RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. See 2 also supra note 1. 3 RESPONSE 4 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to 6 the attached Exhibit W. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 8 Identify the number of cases and refugees that were Ready for Departure on the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United States since the date of the Agency Memo without additional Processing of Applications. 9 10 OBJECTIONS 11 12 13 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 14 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 27, as the requested information is overbroad and 15 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 16 to mootness. 17 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 27 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee 18 19 applicants who were not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand at the time of 20 the Agency Memo. The “Ready for Departure” designation applies to cases that are 21 processed through WRAPS, and the only FTJ cases processed through WRAPS at the 22 time of the Agency Memo were those processed by RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. See 23 also supra note 1. 24 25 26 27 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the attached Exhibit X. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 11 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 106 of 122 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 2 Identify the total number of cases and refugees that were Ready for Departure on the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United States since the date of the Agency Memo after additional Processing of Applications. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 28, as the requested information is overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 10 to mootness. 11 12 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 28 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee 13 applicants who were not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand at the time of 14 the Agency Memo. The “Ready for Departure” designation applies to cases that are 15 processed through WRAPS, and the only FTJ cases processed through WRAPS at the 16 time of the Agency Memo were those processed by RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. See 17 also supra note 1. 18 19 20 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to 21 the attached Exhibit Y. 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 23 24 25 Identify the number of cases and refugees that were not Ready for Departure on the date of the Agency Memo and have been admitted to the United States since the date of the Agency Memo after additional Processing of Applications. 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 12 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 107 of 122 1 2 3 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 4 5 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 29, as the requested information is overbroad and 6 disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 7 to mootness. 8 9 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 29 insofar as it requests data about FTJ refugee applicants who were not processed through RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand at the time of 10 the Agency Memo. The “Ready for Departure” designation applies to cases that are 11 12 processed through WRAPS, and the only FTJ cases processed through WRAPS at the 13 time of the Agency Memo were those processed by RSC Kenya and RSC Thailand. See 14 also supra note 1. 15 16 RESPONSE 17 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the attached Exhibit Z. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 30 19 20 Identify the current estimated processing time from time of referral or application to the USRAP to admission to the United States, and the current estimated processing time from time of interview to time of admission to the United States. [footnote omitted] 21 22 23 24 25 26 OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants incorporate by reference the above General Objections, Objections to Introductory Material, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions. 2. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 30, as the requested information is overbroad and disproportional to the needs of this case in which discovery is limited to issues pertaining 27 to mootness. 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 13 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 108 of 122 1 3. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 30 because Defendants are unable to estimate 2 current refugee applicant processing times, as processing times can only be accurately 3 computed with respect to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States. 4 5 Per the parties’ prior agreement, reflected in a September 14, 2018, e-mail from defense 6 counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel and a September 17, 2018, e-mail from Plaintiffs’ counsel 7 to defense counsel, Defendants will instead provide average processing times for refugee 8 applicants who arrived in the United States during the current fiscal year and prior fiscal 9 years. 10 4. Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 30 insofar as it seeks data about FTJ applicants 11 12 processed by Consular Affairs (“CA”). CA does not track when FTJs are admitted to the 13 United States, and thus it would be unduly burdensome for Defendants to seek out and 14 compile this information for FTJ refugee applicants processed by CA. 15 16 RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendants refer Plaintiffs to the 17 attached Exhibit AA, which reflects responsive data about non-FTJ refugee applicants and FTJ 18 19 refugee applicants processed at RSCs. USCIS does not have data responsive to this interrogatory 20 because USCIS does not track admission of refugees. USCIS does track processing times, which 21 are available online, for FTJ cases processed by overseas field offices, although this data includes 22 asylee FTJ cases and is calculated from the time of receipt of a case by USCIS abroad to issuance 23 of a decision. 24 25 26 DATED: October 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 27 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General 28 AUGUST E. FLENTJE DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 14 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 109 of 122 1 Special Counsel 2 JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch /s/ Joseph C. Dugan KEVIN SNELL JOSEPH C. DUGAN DANIEL BENSING Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: joseph.dugan@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ SUPPL. OBJECTIONS & WRITTEN RESPONSES TO PLS. JFS & JOSEPH DOE’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGS. TO DEFS. - 15 Doe, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle, et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-3259 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 110 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit V Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 111 of 122 I nt er r ogat or y25: I dent i f yt henumberofc asesandr ef ugeeswhower eReadyf orDepar t ur eont hedat eoft heAgenc yMemo Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 587 1, 589 106 231 693 1, 820 3 3 8 8 11 11 704 1, 831 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 112 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit W Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 113 of 122 I nt er r ogat or y26: I dent i f yt henumberofc asesandr ef ugeest hatwer eReadyf orDepar t ur eont hedat eoft heAgenc yMemobuthavebeenr et ur nedt o Pr oc essi ngofAppl i c at i onssi nc et hedat eoft heAgenc yMemo. Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 191 612 61 141 252 753 1 1 7 7 8 8 260 761 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 114 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit X Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 115 of 122 I nt er r ogat or y27: I dent i f yt henumberofc asesandr ef ugeest hatwer eReadyf orDepar t ur eont hedat eoft heAgenc yMemoandhavebeenadmi t t edt o t heUni t edSt at essi nc et hedat eoft heAgenc yMemowi t houtaddi t i onalPr oc essi ngofAppl i c at i ons. Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 396 977 45 90 441 1, 067 2 2 1 1 3 3 444 1, 070 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 116 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit Y Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 117 of 122 I nt er r ogat or y28: I dent i f yt henumberofc asesandr ef ugeest hatwer eReadyf orDepar t ur eont hedat eoft heAgenc yMemoandhave beenadmi t t edt ot heUni t edSt at essi nc et hedat eoft heAgenc yMemoaf t eraddi t i onalPr oc essi ngofAppl i c at i ons. Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 155 511 2 3 157 514 1 1 1 1 158 515 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 118 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit Z Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 119 of 122 I nt er r ogat or y29: I dent i f yt henumberofc asesandr ef ugeest hatwer enotReadyf orDepar t ur eont hedat eoft heAgenc yMemoandhavebeenadmi t t ed t ot heUni t edSt at essi nc et hedat eoft heAgenc yMemoaf t eraddi t i onalPr oc essi ngofAppl i c at i ons. Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * SubTot al NonSAO Nat i onal i t yCase SAONat i onal i t y Case Al lRef ugees SubTot al Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds Cases I nds 7, 132 18, 291 82 119 7, 214 18, 410 25 26 2 2 27 28 7, 241 18, 438 *Onl yFTJ spr oc essedatRSCKenyaandRSCThai l and Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 120 of 122 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Defendants’ Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Exhibit AA Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 121 of 122 Aver ageNumberofDaysf r om t i meofr ef er r alofappl i c at i ont ot heUSRAPt oadmi ssi ont o t heUni t edSt at es Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) FYAr r i val Ref ugeesf r om nonSAO Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * Over al lAver age f orAl lRef ugees Ref ugeesf r om SAOCount r i es Over al lAver age FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Over al lAver age 2015 950 1, 010 975 1, 095 1, 180 1, 124 975 2016 793 902 839 1, 036 1, 012 1, 023 840 2017 756 892 814 781 873 836 814 2018 915 1, 087 919 908 751 868 919 Gr andTot al 850 937 883 981 982 981 884 *I nc l udesFTJ spr oc essedbyt heRSCs Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-6 Filed 11/05/18 Page 122 of 122 Aver ageNumberofDaysf r om t i meofi nt er vi ew t ot i meofadmi ssi ont ot heUni t ed St at es Ref ugees( exc l udi ngFol l owt oJ oi n) FYAr r i val Ref ugeesf r om nonSAO Count r i es Fol l owt oJ oi n( FTJ ) * Ref ugeesf r om Over al lAver age SAOCount r i es FTJf r om nonSAO Count r i es FTJf r om SAO Count r i es Over al lAver age f orAl lRef ugees Over al lAver age 2015 395 412 402 748 715 737 404 2016 292 310 300 488 447 465 301 2017 302 292 298 506 353 415 299 2018 427 591 431 533 444 510 431 Gr andTot al 345 341 344 593 465 532 345 *I nc l udesFTJ spr oc essedbyt heRSCs Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-7 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 5 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit G Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-7 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 5 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Kornreich, Mollie; Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; "mhirose@refugeerights.org"; "Linda Evarts (levarts@refugeerights.org)"; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)"; "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)"; "Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)"; "Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)"; "Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)"; Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org); "Deepa Alagesan"; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); Alison Gaffney; MacNeil, Madeleine P RE: Doe v. Trump and JFS v. Trump Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6:23:13 PM Dear Mollie, et al.,   Thanks for your e-mail of Saturday 8/11.  We write to respond and clarify a few points.   With respect to your first point, it is correct that Defendants hope to produce materials on a rolling basis but cannot guarantee the number of documents, if any, we will produce before the 9/14 estimated production date that we represented in our August 7, 2018, letter.  Obviously, if Defendants are still producing documents on 9/14, it would be exceedingly challenging for us to put together an accurate privilege log for release that same day.  To that end, we appreciate Plaintiffs’ suggestion of a joint motion to extend the discovery motions deadline by two weeks (an extension that should still allow all discovery to be completed within the 90 days permitted under Judge Robart’s Order).  I see that you have circulated today a draft of that joint motion.  We will respond to that draft by separate cover.   With respect to your second point, I believe the parties may have a slight misunderstanding.  I did not intend to convey, and did not state on the call, that Defendants have decided not to run keyword searches.  What I stated was that at this point Defendants are focusing on targeted searches and have not yet determined whether any keyword searches will be necessary.  I’m not currently in a position to provide an explanation of our search methodology, as we are still in the document-gathering phase of this discovery.  However, from what my agency colleagues have told me, I expect e-mail communications will be among the documents produced as responsive to RFP1.   With respect to your third point, I have followed up with our document production experts at FPB.  Without waiving any further objections we may identify going forward, here is our preliminary take:  We agree with Instruction 9.  We generally agree with Instruction 10, though we are assessing whether it is practicable for us to tag individual documents for responsiveness to particular RFPs.  We agree with Instruction 12, with two caveats:  (1) Bates range is redundant of Bates start/stop fields and will not be separately provided; (2) file title seems redundant of file name and will not be separately provided.  We agree with Instruction 13, but would add the following language (which I will also flag in my objections next week):  “Should a document or file that would be produced in native format require redaction, the producing party shall determine if the document or file can be produced as an image file with redactions applied or other reasonable method to produce the document or file with all applicable redactions.”   Additionally, we note that Instruction 2 is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether Plaintiffs contemplate that Defendants will state the reason for redaction on the document itself or in a separate redaction log.  We can use either approach, though it might be simpler just to place the explanatory text on the document itself.  But let us know your thoughts.   With respect to your fourth point, I think we will have to agree to disagree about the propriety of RFP3 as a request for production.  Based on my preliminary conversations with agency counsel, I doubt that much of the requested info exists in readily producible form.  And as you noted in your e-mail, Defendants’ primary concern goes to proportionality, particularly in light of Judge Robart’s admonition that this jurisdictional discovery should be narrowly crafted.  Frankly, that proportionality concern applies regardless whether the request is labeled as an RFP or an interrogatory.  For that reason, we appreciate your group’s willingness to take another look and see whether there are any data points that might not be essential from your perspective.  As I stated on the call, our group is Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-7 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 5 also conferring both internally and with our agency clients to see what data we think we might reasonably be able to obtain and produce, and we will provide you with additional information once we have it.   One other, related point:  Defendants disagree that the request falls within the default numerical limit for interrogatories.  While it is true as a general matter that each plaintiff in multiparty litigation can seek discovery from each defendant, here the request is styled as one propounded on behalf of all Plaintiffs seeking information from all Defendants.  In such situations, courts have counted interrogatories propounded by multiple litigants against each such litigant.  E.g., Neill v. All Pride Fitness of Washougal, LLC, No. C08-5424RJB, 2009 WL 10676369, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 21, 2009) (“The interrogatories served . . . were, by their language, directed by all plaintiffs to all defendants, and were clearly in excess of the 25 interrogatories allowed by the rule.  Plaintiffs attempt to finesse the rule by arguing that each plaintiff gets 25 interrogatories, but they did not submit individual interrogatories for individual plaintiffs.”).  So, as you are thinking about how you might reframe RFP3, we would appreciate it if you would take into account the default rules under the FRCP as well as Judge Robart’s proportionality guidance.   With respect to your fifth and final point, Defendants have not yet determined whether we intend to seek jurisdictional discovery.  To be clear, however, I wasn’t asking Plaintiffs to prospectively assess whether you might object to our discovery; rather, I was asking whether Plaintiffs agree or disagree that the Government is entitled to seek jurisdictional discovery just as Plaintiffs are entitled to do under Judge Robart’s Order.  Any acknowledgment by you that we are entitled to seek discovery would not amount to a concession that any particular discovery request we might propound is proper.  I just want to get a sense for whether we need to file a contested motion before even propounding discovery, in the event we decide it is in the Government’s interest for us to do so.  I hope that clarifies my question.   If you have any immediate questions about the above, feel free to reach out.  Otherwise, we will be in touch once we have any meaningful information to share about RFP3 (and, regardless, with our written objections that we plan to produce on or before 8/22).   Best, Joe   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Rm. 7330 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: Kornreich, Mollie [mailto:mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com] Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 11:22 AM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; 'Linda Evarts (levarts@refugeerights.org)' ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)' ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)' ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-7 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 5 (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org) ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; Alison Gaffney ; MacNeil, Madeleine P Subject: Doe v. Trump and JFS v. Trump   Joe, Kevin and Dan,   We write to memorialize and follow-up on yesterday's meet and confer.   First, we advised that, given the current discovery motion deadline, we cannot agree to your proposed schedule with respect to the privilege log.  You explained that, while you will endeavor to produce documents and any privilege log in advance of the dates in your proposed schedule and on a rolling basis, you cannot commit to completion by an earlier date.  In light of your position, we discussed a potential joint motion to move the discovery motion deadline back by two weeks.  Assuming you remain amenable to this approach, we can circulate a draft joint motion next week.    Second, in response to our suggestion that the parties discuss search terms, you advised that the government is not currently intending to run search terms because, based upon your discussions to date with agency contacts, you believe that targeted searches without the use of search terms will be appropriate to locate responsive materials.  You offered to consider any search terms we propose.  While we are still considering what, if any, search terms we might send you for consideration, we are surprised that you not planning on running any, particularly in response to RFP 1.  For example, we are concerned that your targeted searches may not capture instructions or guidance that might have been sent via email communications.  We would appreciate if you could explain your search methodology in greater detail, including what sources you are searching for responsive material and whether the anticipated search includes a search for communications, electronic or otherwise.   Third, to facilitate a smooth production process, we asked that you tell us the extent to which your production will deviate from the instructions in paragraphs 9, 10, 12, and 13 of Plaintiffs' RFPs.  You are planning to share these instructions with your document production lab and will let us know, which we appreciate.   Fourth, we reiterated our position that RFP 3 is a proper document request, but we are amenable to re-framing it as an interrogatory if that is your preference.  You restated your position that the request should be styled as an interrogatory.  We explained our view that, to the extent it is re-framed as an interrogatory, it is well within the default numerical limit given that these RFPs are propounded by plaintiffs in two cases, each of which involves multiple plaintiffs and defendants.  You stated that your primary objection with regard to RFP 3 concerns proportionality.  We will further consider whether this RFP can be narrowed, but explained that because we believe the request is appropriately tailored as currently drafted, it is difficult to do so without knowing what specifically you object to and why.  You further stated that, based on further conversations with the relevant agencies, you hope to have a better understanding next week as to what data is readily ascertainable, what aspects of the RFP are most burdensome, and what information you will be able and willing to provide.  We would appreciate if you would share with us what you learn at your earliest convenience so we can take it into consideration in reevaluating RFP 3.   Fifth, and finally, you asked whether we would object to the government seeking jurisdictional discovery from plaintiffs.  We responded that we would discuss it internally, which we will, but it is hard to answer without knowing specifically what is being sought.  You were unable to provide further detail beyond saying that you are contemplating an interrogatory, rather than documents requests.  If you would like a firm answer on whether we would object, we will require more detail.   Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-7 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 5 Best regards, Mollie   Mollie Kornreich Four Times Square New York 10036-6522 T: 212.735.2775 F: 917.777.2775 mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------**************************************************** This email and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me via email at the return address contained in this message and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of any email, and any printout thereof. **************************************************** ============================================================================== Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-8 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit H Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-8 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 2 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Melissa Keaney Dugan, Joseph (CIV); Sheehan Davis, Abigail; Kornreich, Mollie; Aguiar, Lauren E; "mhirose@refugeerights.org"; Linda Evarts; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)"; "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)"; "Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)"; "Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)"; "Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)"; "Deepa Alagesan"; "Liz.Sweet@hias.Org"; "Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org"; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; MacNeil, Madeleine P; jcox@refugeerights.org; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Snell, Kevin (CIV) Re: Doe, JFS - 30(b)(6) Deposition Thursday, October 04, 2018 7:34:18 PM Dear Joe,   While we are continuing to process the discovery materials Defendants have produced thus far, it has become clear that Plaintiffs will need at least one 30(b)(6) deposition to answer certain questions either presented by the documents or not answered by them. Before noticing that deposition, we’re reaching out as a courtesy to inquire whether Defendants would voluntarily produce a deponent, or if instead we should raise the issue with Judge Robart next week.  We are happy to discuss sometime tomorrow if that would be useful.   Thank you in advance,   Melissa -Melissa Keaney Staff Attorney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles CA 90010 ph 213.674.2820 f 213.639.3911 c  805.252.3845 keaney@nilc.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.       Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-9 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 3 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit I Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-9 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Snell, Kevin (CIV) Melissa Keaney; Dugan, Joseph (CIV); Sheehan Davis, Abigail; Kornreich, Mollie; Aguiar, Lauren E; "mhirose@refugeerights.org"; Linda Evarts; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)"; "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)"; "Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)"; "Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)"; "Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)"; "Deepa Alagesan"; "Liz.Sweet@hias.Org"; "Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org"; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; MacNeil, Madeleine P; jcox@refugeerights.org; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Bensing, Daniel (CIV) RE: Doe, JFS - 30(b)(6) Deposition Friday, October 05, 2018 5:39:00 PM Melissa,   Thank you for your email.  Defendants are not in a position to “voluntarily produce a deponent” for a deposition without knowing with reasonable particularly the matters for examination.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).  If Plaintiffs provide us with such information, we will review and get back with you.   Thanks, and have a good holiday weekend. Kevin      Kevin Snell Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 202.305.0924   From: Melissa Keaney [mailto:keaney@nilc.org] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 7:33 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; Kornreich, Mollie ; Aguiar, Lauren E ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; Linda Evarts ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) (DBurman@perkinscoie.com)' ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) (CSepe@perkinscoie.com)' ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; jcox@refugeerights.org; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Cc: Bensing, Daniel (CIV) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) Subject: Re: Doe, JFS - 30(b)(6) Deposition   Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-9 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 3 Dear Joe,   While we are continuing to process the discovery materials Defendants have produced thus far, it has become clear that Plaintiffs will need at least one 30(b)(6) deposition to answer certain questions either presented by the documents or not answered by them. Before noticing that deposition, we’re reaching out as a courtesy to inquire whether Defendants would voluntarily produce a deponent, or if instead we should raise the issue with Judge Robart next week.  We are happy to discuss sometime tomorrow if that would be useful.   Thank you in advance,   Melissa -Melissa Keaney Staff Attorney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles CA 90010 ph 213.674.2820 f 213.639.3911 c  805.252.3845 keaney@nilc.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.       Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 7 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit J Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 7 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Melissa Keaney; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie); Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; "mhirose@refugeerights.org"; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie); "Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)"; "Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)"; "Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)"; "Deepa Alagesan"; "Liz.Sweet@hias.Org"; "Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org"; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie); "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); "Alison Gaffney"; MacNeil, Madeleine P; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs" Fourth Set of Interrogatories Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:30:50 PM Melissa,   We are deeply disappointed by Plaintiffs’ insinuation, now on two occasions, that Defendants have been anything other than entirely candid with the Court.  The parties may disagree about substantive matters in this litigation, but attacks on our professionalism and ethics are unwarranted, and we reject them in the strongest possible terms.  We regret that, after Defendants’ considerable efforts over the past several months (during which time Plaintiffs refused to answer our handful of contention interrogatories), the comity between the parties has apparently broken down.   The parties obviously have divergent views about the nature and extent of discovery that Judge Robart authorized, including the scope of Defendants’ search.  Defendants see little value in quarreling about those differences:  if Plaintiffs have concerns about the scope of our search or any other matters, Plaintiffs can bring those concerns to the Court’s attention.   We are baffled by your complaint that Plaintiffs have been “forced to piece . . . together” the steps Defendants took to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction Order—since, presumably, Plaintiffs could have propounded relevant interrogatories had Plaintiffs not exhausted and indeed exceeded the default 25 interrogatories under the Federal Rules with your vast data requests.  We are likewise baffled and insulted by the assertion that there have been “significant (and ongoing) delays” in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, given that Defendants served our objections to the RFPs in advance of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and completed our production in response to RFPs 1-2 within just over six weeks from the date of service (surely a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34); served our objections and responses to your second and third rounds of interrogatories in advance of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and requested only a short extension on our objections and responses to your first round of interrogatories.  (As you will recall, Plaintiffs did not respond to our request for that short extension until after 10PM ET on the evening the responses would otherwise have been due, notwithstanding our request for a brief extension on two earlier occasions.)   As for the proposed depositions, the parties will likely need to seek guidance from the Court.  However, we doubt that Defendants will be amenable to your eleventh hour and expansive deposition requests.   Regarding your 9-page letter of October 4, 2018, served shortly before a federal holiday weekend, in general it appears that these matters may be ripe for presentation to the Court.  However, we offer the following information about points we have not previously addressed: · As for the purported “missing documents” that you identify on pages 2-3, Defendants are researching this matter and expect to have a response soon. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 7 · · · · As for the documents with “technical issues,” we are in the process of reimaging the identified documents and will reproduce them as soon as practicable. As for your comments about our privilege log, we are puzzled by your request.  If Plaintiffs’ expectation is that Defendants will log all redactions of PII or government personnel contact information, that seems like a meaningless and unduly burdensome chore.  If Plaintiffs’ concern rather is with our decision not to produce for your inspection PII of individual refugee applicants who are not your clients, we stand behind that decision and will defend it to the Court if necessary.  You have given us no reason to conclude that such sensitive information impacts either your clients or the jurisdictional issue pending before the Court. As for your request that we “take another look” at our LES and deliberative process redactions, as you are aware, we have already done so in connection with our production of the privilege log.  Nevertheless, per your request, Defendants are continuing to assess those redactions, and if Defendants determine that any redactions may or should be lifted, Defendants will reprocess the affected documents as soon as practicable. As for your comments about the scope of our search, Defendants have provided ample explanation for the reasonable approach we have taken, and we refer you to our objections to your RFPs and our extensive prior correspondence.   In terms of our availability for a call with the Court on Friday, we are generally available between 11:30AM and 5PM ET.   Joe Dugan   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: Melissa Keaney [mailto:keaney@nilc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 7 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Joe,   I am writing to discuss a few discovery matters and in response to Kevin’s email to me (on 10/5/18) and your email to Cristina Perkins (on 10/9/18).    As a prefatory matter, we wanted to register our strong disagreement with your continued assertion that Plaintiffs’ discovery has exceeded the scope of jurisdictional discovery authorized by Judge Robart and/or that the requests have been disproportionate to the needs of the case.  On the former, and as we have explained before, Defendants’ protestations seem to be based on an unsupported and erroneous position regarding the factual issues relevant to the legal determination of mootness (on which, moreover, Defendants bear the burden of proof).  On the latter, there are a lot of vulnerable human beings, including our clients and their clients, whose lives could be significantly affected by the factual question of whether, for example, Defendants heeded Judge Robart’s order to take actions necessary to undo those portions of the Agency Memo that were enjoined.  In light of these considerations, we believe our targeted requests are exceedingly reasonable, particularly given our demonstrated willingness to work with Defendants to minimize any burden imposed.  Moreover, our discovery requests could have been even more targeted had Defendants explained—ever—the steps they took to implement the suspensions, how they interpreted the scope of the preliminary injunction, or the steps they took to implement the injunction.  Instead, we have been forced to piece it together from the few hundred documents Defendants chose to produce.  And those few documents Defendants have produced thus far not only demonstrate that Plaintiffs were justified in their concerns regarding Defendants’ injunction compliance, but also that Defendants may not have been fully candid with the Court in their factual representations.   With the foregoing in mind, we wanted to follow up on a few issues that we have been emailing about recently.   First, there are a number of questions that the other forms of discovery do not answer, and so we would like to notice the depositions of Kelly Gauger and Jennifer Higgins.  We are flexible on the date and location.  Please let us know whether Defendants will produce them voluntarily and, if so, preferred dates and locations.  We will also notice 30(b)(6) deposition(s) for the person(s) most knowledgeable about the particular steps Defendants took to implement the suspensions and then to comply with the preliminary injunction.  Given the multiple declarations that Ms. Gauger and Ms. Higgins have submitted on the latter topic, presumably they could serve as 30(b)(6) witnesses as well, but of course Defendants could designate whoever they wanted.  Please let us know Defendants’ position on these depositions as soon as possible so that we can either get them scheduled or raise the issue with Judge Robart. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 7   Second, and relatedly, please let us know when we can expect a response to our letter dated October 4, which addressed a number of issues related to Defendants’ document production.  It seems unlikely that we will reach agreement on all the issues addressed therein, and we want to ensure that we have time to bring any intractable disputes to Judge Robart.   Third, we are in receipt of your email yesterday today informing us that Defendants would not be responding to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories.  Given Defendants’ significant (and ongoing) delays in responding to Plaintiffs’ prior discovery requests, and what the documents produced thus far reveal, we think it entirely reasonable that these interrogatories were not served earlier.   Accordingly, we intend to address this issue with Judge Robart.     Finally, given the high likelihood that such a call will be necessary, please let us know when you are available on Friday to call Judge Robart’s chambers, per his order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Local Rule 7(i).   I look forward to your response. Best,   Melissa   -Melissa Keaney Staff Attorney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles CA 90010 ph 213.674.2820 f 213.639.3911 c  805.252.3845 keaney@nilc.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.       From: "Dugan, Joseph (CIV)" Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 4:29 PM To: "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)" , "Snell, Kevin (CIV)" , "Bensing, Daniel (CIV)" , "Dugan, Joseph (CIV)" Cc: "Aguiar, Lauren E" , "Sheehan Davis, Abigail" , "'mhirose@refugeerights.org'" , Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 7 "jcox@refugeerights.org" , Linda Evarts , "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)" , "'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'" , "'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'" , "'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'" , Melissa Keaney , 'Deepa Alagesan' , "'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'" , "'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'" , "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)" , "'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'" , "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)" , 'Alison Gaffney' , "MacNeil, Madeleine P" , "DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com" Subject: RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories Cristina,   Thank you for your e-mail of 10/5/18 sent at 8:17PM ET, after business hours at the start of a federal holiday weekend.  As you are aware, the limited jurisdictional discovery that Judge Robart authorized is set to close on 10/25/18, less than three weeks from the date Plaintiffs served their six additional interrogatories, five of which follow the pattern of your prior burdensome requests in seeking week-by-week data and one of which improperly requests PII about refugee applicants who, presumably, are not your clients.    Defendants will not respond to these tardy interrogatories.  See, e.g., Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176, 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties thirty days to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. Therefore, requests must be served at least thirty days prior to a completion of discovery deadline.” (citations omitted)); Reed v. Morgan, No. 3:16-CV-05993-BHS-DWC, 2017 WL 4408076, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017) (“[F]or discovery to be timely, a party must serve discovery at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline in order to allow the other party sufficient time to respond.”); Miller v. Rufion, No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc), 2010 WL 4137278, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (“The purpose of a discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties from a continuing burden of producing evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare immediately before trial.  Therefore, discovery requests must be served at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline.” (citations omitted)).  Nor will we agree to any request by Plaintiffs to extend the discovery deadline, as we are confident the many hundreds of pages of documents we have produced, along with the substantial data we have supplied, should equip Plaintiffs to assess their case in light of our forthcoming renewed Rule 12(b)(1) motion.  Indeed, as we have stated previously, it is our position that Plaintiffs’ requests to date vastly exceed the narrow discovery that Judge Robart authorized:  these additional, out-of-time interrogatories would only widen the gulf between the discovery that Plaintiffs are permitted to take and the discovery that Plaintiffs have unilaterally chosen to pursue.   Joe Dugan   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-10 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 7 Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov   From: Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) [mailto:CSepe@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 8:17 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; jcox@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts (levarts@refugeerights.org)' ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Joe, Kevin, and Daniel:   Attached please find Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories.   Regards,   Cristina   Cristina Sepe Perkins Coie LLP ASSOCIATE 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 D. +1.206.359.8758 F. +1.206.359.9758 E. CSepe@perkinscoie.com   NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 11 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit K Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 11 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Melissa Keaney; Snell, Kevin (CIV); Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Aguiar, Lauren E; Sheehan Davis, Abigail; "mhirose@refugeerights.org"; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie); "Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)"; "Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)"; "Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)"; "Deepa Alagesan"; "Liz.Sweet@hias.Org"; "Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org"; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie); "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie); "Alison Gaffney"; MacNeil, Madeleine P; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs" Fourth Set of Interrogatories Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:00:20 PM Doe, JFS - Defs Objections and Responses to Third Set of Interrogatories supplemental for service.pdf Melissa:   If Plaintiffs thought it “important to articulate th[eir] observation” of supposed inconsistencies regarding Defendants’ representations, the reasonable course of action would have been to specifically identify any such inconsistency.  Plaintiffs have not done so despite raising this issue now three times.  If and when Plaintiffs see fit to identify the document or documents that Plaintiffs believe to be inconsistent with any representation that Defendants have made to the Court, we will of course review such materials.  Plaintiffs’ vague accusations, however, are neither helpful nor conducive to the constructive working relationship Defendants have strived to create in recent months by timely responding to Plaintiffs’ frequent inquiries and complaints.   To follow up on a few outstanding items from your October 4 letter: · “Missing Documents”:  We have checked with our clients and confirmed that all documents in this list were withheld as nonresponsive.  However, on further review, we have decided to produce the seven “Cleared SAOs for Review” spreadsheets (with appropriate redactions for PII).  You should be receiving those files via JEFS shortly, and we are FedExing discs (password is ) to ACLU of Washington and Skadden, per our established practice. · “Documents with Technical Issues”:  We have reimaged all of these, and we are including the reimaged Bates pages you identified in our JEFS/disc productions this evening. · JFS_USCIS_00000156-57:  We reviewed the redaction in this document that you flagged.  It covers utterly nonresponsive material about personnel policies at USCIS, including time off awards and entitlements.   Additionally, please find attached Defendants’ Supplemental Objections and Written Responses to Plaintiffs JFS and Joseph Doe’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendants.  The only change from our service of October 5, 2018, is an additional response by USCIS to Interrogatory 30.   As to the remaining, outstanding issues, the parties’ disagreements appear to be sufficiently defined.  We will call your conference line at 3:55PM ET tomorrow.   Joe   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 11 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: Melissa Keaney [mailto:keaney@nilc.org] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:39 PM To: Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Joe:   Plaintiffs’ observation that the records Defendants chose to produce seem inconsistent with representations Defendants have made to the Court is not an “attack”; nor, for that matter, is it unwarranted, as Defendants can surely see from their own review of those documents they have chosen to produce and their knowledge of what representations they have made to the Court.  Defensiveness about such an issue is understandable, and it would be unfortunate if it were to degrade our working relationships, but we thought it important to articulate this observation to ensure that Defendants are aware of it and have the opportunity to correct any misstatements that they discover in their own review of what they have told the Court.   On the other issues:   On the depositions, we are happy to seek guidance from Judge Robart, but it would of course be helpful to know what objections Defendants have to them, so that we can see if there is any middle ground we can achieve.   On the PII issue and how it relates to the privilege log: as our letter of a week ago stated, we have no objection to Defendants redacting three categories of information that you said Defendants would redact in your emails in late August: contact information for Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 11 government personnel; names of law enforcement and other personnel employed by government contractors; and PII protected by the Privacy Act.  But when we received the documents, it was clear that Defendants redacted a huge amount of information that doesn’t fit in any of those categories—in particular, information (including information that would not be personally identifiable) related to individual refugees.  Our letter of October 4 asked Defendants to explain any information that they redacted on the belief that it fit the third category. Your response of earlier today seems to concede that you have no argument that the information regarding individual refugees does fit into any of those categories or is otherwise privileged; instead, you seem to suggest that Defendants just do not think that information relevant.  We are extremely disappointed that Defendants unilaterally reneged on the understanding that we reached in late August, and that they did so without even acknowledging it to Plaintiffs, prior to us asking a direct question about it.  Moreover, the suggestion that information about how Defendants treated individual refugees under the suspensions and then under our preliminary injunction does not meet the discovery standard is plainly wrong.  As we said in our October 4 letter, we are willing to stipulate to a protective order regarding this information, but Defendants ongoing refusal to produce it is unjustified.   We are available to call Chambers tomorrow at 4:00 PM ET.  We called chambers to confirm preferred practice, and Judge Robart’s judicial assistant indicated that all counsel should participate by phone to briefly explain the nature of the dispute before setting it for a telephonic motion. Unfortunately, she also stated that Judge Robart is in trial this week, but said that someone from chambers would likely be able to take down the nature of the dispute.   If you are able to call into the conference line below in advance of that time, we will then conference in Judge Robart’s chambers.   (605) 472-5305 594684   Best,   Melissa -Melissa Keaney Staff Attorney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles CA 90010 ph 213.674.2820 f 213.639.3911 c  805.252.3845 keaney@nilc.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 11 dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.         From: "Snell, Kevin (CIV)" Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:56 PM To: "Dugan, Joseph (CIV)" , Melissa Keaney , "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)" , "Bensing, Daniel (CIV)" Cc: "Aguiar, Lauren E" , "Sheehan Davis, Abigail" , "'mhirose@refugeerights.org'" , "jcox@refugeerights.org" , Linda Evarts , "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)" , "'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'" , "'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'" , "'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'" , 'Deepa Alagesan' , "'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'" , "'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'" , "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)" , "'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'" , "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)" , 'Alison Gaffney' , "MacNeil, Madeleine P" , "DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com" , "Snell, Kevin (CIV)" Subject: RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories Melissa,   We would appreciate it if you let us know today what time you’d like to have Friday’s call.  Also, do you plan to notify the Court that the parties are planning to call at that time?   Kevin     Kevin Snell Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 202.305.0924   From: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:31 PM To: Melissa Keaney ; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) ; Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 11 jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Melissa,   We are deeply disappointed by Plaintiffs’ insinuation, now on two occasions, that Defendants have been anything other than entirely candid with the Court.  The parties may disagree about substantive matters in this litigation, but attacks on our professionalism and ethics are unwarranted, and we reject them in the strongest possible terms.  We regret that, after Defendants’ considerable efforts over the past several months (during which time Plaintiffs refused to answer our handful of contention interrogatories), the comity between the parties has apparently broken down.   The parties obviously have divergent views about the nature and extent of discovery that Judge Robart authorized, including the scope of Defendants’ search.  Defendants see little value in quarreling about those differences:  if Plaintiffs have concerns about the scope of our search or any other matters, Plaintiffs can bring those concerns to the Court’s attention.   We are baffled by your complaint that Plaintiffs have been “forced to piece . . . together” the steps Defendants took to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction Order—since, presumably, Plaintiffs could have propounded relevant interrogatories had Plaintiffs not exhausted and indeed exceeded the default 25 interrogatories under the Federal Rules with your vast data requests.  We are likewise baffled and insulted by the assertion that there have been “significant (and ongoing) delays” in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, given that Defendants served our objections to the RFPs in advance of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and completed our production in response to RFPs 1-2 within just over six weeks from the date of service (surely a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34); served our objections and responses to your second and third rounds of interrogatories in advance of the default deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and requested only a short extension on our objections and responses to your first round of interrogatories.  (As you will recall, Plaintiffs did not respond to our request for that short extension until after 10PM ET on the evening the responses would otherwise have been due, notwithstanding our request for a brief extension on two earlier occasions.)   As for the proposed depositions, the parties will likely need to seek guidance from the Court.  However, we doubt that Defendants will be amenable to your eleventh hour and expansive deposition requests.   Regarding your 9-page letter of October 4, 2018, served shortly before a federal holiday weekend, in Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 11 general it appears that these matters may be ripe for presentation to the Court.  However, we offer the following information about points we have not previously addressed: · As for the purported “missing documents” that you identify on pages 2-3, Defendants are researching this matter and expect to have a response soon. · As for the documents with “technical issues,” we are in the process of reimaging the identified documents and will reproduce them as soon as practicable. · As for your comments about our privilege log, we are puzzled by your request.  If Plaintiffs’ expectation is that Defendants will log all redactions of PII or government personnel contact information, that seems like a meaningless and unduly burdensome chore.  If Plaintiffs’ concern rather is with our decision not to produce for your inspection PII of individual refugee applicants who are not your clients, we stand behind that decision and will defend it to the Court if necessary.  You have given us no reason to conclude that such sensitive information impacts either your clients or the jurisdictional issue pending before the Court. · As for your request that we “take another look” at our LES and deliberative process redactions, as you are aware, we have already done so in connection with our production of the privilege log.  Nevertheless, per your request, Defendants are continuing to assess those redactions, and if Defendants determine that any redactions may or should be lifted, Defendants will reprocess the affected documents as soon as practicable. · As for your comments about the scope of our search, Defendants have provided ample explanation for the reasonable approach we have taken, and we refer you to our objections to your RFPs and our extensive prior correspondence.   In terms of our availability for a call with the Court on Friday, we are generally available between 11:30AM and 5PM ET.   Joe Dugan   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: Melissa Keaney [mailto:keaney@nilc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:33 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 11 jcox@refugeerights.org; Linda Evarts ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Re: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Joe,   I am writing to discuss a few discovery matters and in response to Kevin’s email to me (on 10/5/18) and your email to Cristina Perkins (on 10/9/18).    As a prefatory matter, we wanted to register our strong disagreement with your continued assertion that Plaintiffs’ discovery has exceeded the scope of jurisdictional discovery authorized by Judge Robart and/or that the requests have been disproportionate to the needs of the case.  On the former, and as we have explained before, Defendants’ protestations seem to be based on an unsupported and erroneous position regarding the factual issues relevant to the legal determination of mootness (on which, moreover, Defendants bear the burden of proof).  On the latter, there are a lot of vulnerable human beings, including our clients and their clients, whose lives could be significantly affected by the factual question of whether, for example, Defendants heeded Judge Robart’s order to take actions necessary to undo those portions of the Agency Memo that were enjoined.  In light of these considerations, we believe our targeted requests are exceedingly reasonable, particularly given our demonstrated willingness to work with Defendants to minimize any burden imposed.  Moreover, our discovery requests could have been even more targeted had Defendants explained—ever—the steps they took to implement the suspensions, how they interpreted the scope of the preliminary injunction, or the steps they took to implement the injunction.  Instead, we have been forced to piece it together from the few hundred documents Defendants chose to produce.  And those few documents Defendants have produced thus far not only demonstrate that Plaintiffs were justified in their concerns regarding Defendants’ injunction compliance, but also that Defendants may not have been fully candid with the Court in their factual representations.   With the foregoing in mind, we wanted to follow up on a few issues that we have been emailing about recently.   First, there are a number of questions that the other forms of discovery do not answer, and so we would like to notice the depositions of Kelly Gauger and Jennifer Higgins.  We are flexible on the date and location.  Please let us know whether Defendants will produce them voluntarily and, if so, preferred dates and locations.  We will also notice 30(b)(6) deposition(s) for the person(s) most knowledgeable about the particular steps Defendants took to implement the suspensions and then to comply with the preliminary injunction.  Given the multiple declarations that Ms. Gauger and Ms. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 11 Higgins have submitted on the latter topic, presumably they could serve as 30(b)(6) witnesses as well, but of course Defendants could designate whoever they wanted.  Please let us know Defendants’ position on these depositions as soon as possible so that we can either get them scheduled or raise the issue with Judge Robart.   Second, and relatedly, please let us know when we can expect a response to our letter dated October 4, which addressed a number of issues related to Defendants’ document production.  It seems unlikely that we will reach agreement on all the issues addressed therein, and we want to ensure that we have time to bring any intractable disputes to Judge Robart.   Third, we are in receipt of your email yesterday today informing us that Defendants would not be responding to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories.  Given Defendants’ significant (and ongoing) delays in responding to Plaintiffs’ prior discovery requests, and what the documents produced thus far reveal, we think it entirely reasonable that these interrogatories were not served earlier.   Accordingly, we intend to address this issue with Judge Robart.     Finally, given the high likelihood that such a call will be necessary, please let us know when you are available on Friday to call Judge Robart’s chambers, per his order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Local Rule 7(i).   I look forward to your response. Best,   Melissa   -Melissa Keaney Staff Attorney National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles CA 90010 ph 213.674.2820 f 213.639.3911 c  805.252.3845 keaney@nilc.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally protected from disclosure and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510 et seq. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are informed that any retention, copying, distribution, and/or other use or dissemination of any portion of its contents is prohibited.       From: "Dugan, Joseph (CIV)" Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 4:29 PM To: "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)" , "Snell, Kevin (CIV)" Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 11 , "Bensing, Daniel (CIV)" , "Dugan, Joseph (CIV)" Cc: "Aguiar, Lauren E" , "Sheehan Davis, Abigail" , "'mhirose@refugeerights.org'" , "jcox@refugeerights.org" , Linda Evarts , "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)" , "'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)'" , "'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)'" , "'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)'" , Melissa Keaney , 'Deepa Alagesan' , "'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org'" , "'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org'" , "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)" , "'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'" , "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)" , 'Alison Gaffney' , "MacNeil, Madeleine P" , "DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com" Subject: RE: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories Cristina,   Thank you for your e-mail of 10/5/18 sent at 8:17PM ET, after business hours at the start of a federal holiday weekend.  As you are aware, the limited jurisdictional discovery that Judge Robart authorized is set to close on 10/25/18, less than three weeks from the date Plaintiffs served their six additional interrogatories, five of which follow the pattern of your prior burdensome requests in seeking week-by-week data and one of which improperly requests PII about refugee applicants who, presumably, are not your clients.    Defendants will not respond to these tardy interrogatories.  See, e.g., Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176, 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties thirty days to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. Therefore, requests must be served at least thirty days prior to a completion of discovery deadline.” (citations omitted)); Reed v. Morgan, No. 3:16-CV-05993-BHS-DWC, 2017 WL 4408076, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2017) (“[F]or discovery to be timely, a party must serve discovery at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline in order to allow the other party sufficient time to respond.”); Miller v. Rufion, No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc), 2010 WL 4137278, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (“The purpose of a discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties from a continuing burden of producing evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare immediately before trial.  Therefore, discovery requests must be served at least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline.” (citations omitted)).  Nor will we agree to any request by Plaintiffs to extend the discovery deadline, as we are confident the many hundreds of pages of documents we have produced, along with the substantial data we have supplied, should equip Plaintiffs to assess their case in light of our forthcoming renewed Rule 12(b)(1) motion.  Indeed, as we have stated previously, it is our position that Plaintiffs’ requests to date vastly exceed the narrow discovery that Judge Robart authorized:  these additional, out-of-time interrogatories would only widen the gulf between the discovery that Plaintiffs are permitted to take and the discovery that Plaintiffs have unilaterally chosen to pursue.   Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-11 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 11 Joe Dugan   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov   From: Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie) [mailto:CSepe@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 8:17 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: Aguiar, Lauren E ; Sheehan Davis, Abigail ; 'mhirose@refugeerights.org' ; jcox@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts (levarts@refugeerights.org)' ; Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Tana Lin (tlin@KellerRohrback.com)' ; 'Emily Chiang (echiang@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Lisa Nowlin (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org) (lnowlin@aclu-wa.org)' ; 'Melissa Keaney (keaney@nilc.org)' ; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; 'Liz.Sweet@hias.Org' ; 'Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org' ; Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie) ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie) ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; MacNeil, Madeleine P ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Doe v. Trump, No. C17-0178 (W.D. Wash): Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories   Joe, Kevin, and Daniel:   Attached please find Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories.   Regards,   Cristina   Cristina Sepe Perkins Coie LLP ASSOCIATE 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 D. +1.206.359.8758 F. +1.206.359.9758 E. CSepe@perkinscoie.com   NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-12 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 5 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit L Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-12 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 5 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) jcox@refugeerights.org; "Melissa Keaney"; Snell, Kevin (CIV); "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)"; Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV) "Aguiar, Lauren E"; "Sheehan Davis, Abigail"; mhirose@refugeerights.org; "Linda Evarts"; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)"; "Tana Lin"; "Emily Chiang"; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; "Deepa Alagesan"; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; "MacNeil, Madeleine P"; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com RE: Doe/JFS call to chambers Friday, October 12, 2018 2:15:13 PM Justin,   Thanks for following up.  We are generally amenable to your proposal set forth in your e-mail, subject to the conditions outlined below:   · We request that the deadline for our opposition be extended until Monday 11/5.  We think that’s appropriate for a few reasons:  (1) I am about to take paternity leave, so I will have very limited availability in later October; (2) under the current Order, Plaintiffs’ motion would be due on 10/15, so the proposal gives Plaintiffs additional time; (3) the 5-day period between 11/5 and 11/9 is consistent with the ordinary amount of time allowable under LCR 7(d)(3); and (4) reply briefs, per the local rules, are limited to only 6 pages, and the time prescribed by local rules should be adequate for Plaintiffs. · The briefs should comply with the page-limit requirements under the local rules (12 pages for opening brief and response, 6 pages for reply). · We agree to this proposal if, but only if, Plaintiffs agree that Plaintiffs will propound no further requests for production or interrogatories, and that any deposition will occur only upon agreement of the parties or by order of the Court.   Please let us know if Plaintiffs are amenable to these conditions.  We appreciate your cooperation.    Thanks, Joe   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: jcox@refugeerights.org [mailto:jcox@refugeerights.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 1:22 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; 'Melissa Keaney' ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' ; Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-12 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 5 Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' ; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' ; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Tana Lin' ; 'Emily Chiang' ; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: RE: Doe/JFS call to chambers   Joe,   The issues require some explanation of USRAP and the documents produced so far, and they are pretty interrelated, so we think it best to present them all in writing.   As of now, we intend to address redactions and claims of privilege, the refusal to answer the fourth set of rogs, and depositions. That said, we would welcome any continued efforts at narrowing the issues (for example, you stated in an email yesterday that Defendants are continuing to assess the LES and deliberative process redactions).      In terms of schedule, we would propose the following:   Pls.’ motion due Monday, 10/22 Defs.’ opp’n due Thursday, 11/1 Pls.’ reply due Friday, 11/9   Thanks, Justin   ---Justin B. Cox Senior Supervising Attorney   International Refugee Assistance Project Urban Justice Center PO Box 170208 Atlanta, GA 30317 jcox@refugeerights.org         From: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:11 PM To: jcox@refugeerights.org; 'Melissa Keaney' ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' ; Bensing, Daniel Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-12 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 5 (CIV) ; Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' ; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' ; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Tana Lin' ; 'Emily Chiang' ; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: RE: Doe/JFS call to chambers   Justin,   Thanks for reaching out.  Defendants agree that some of the issues that have been discussed in recent days would probably be best presented in writing, at least in the first instance.  However, given the various e-mail threads over the past couple of months, we aren’t sure which issues Plaintiffs plan to bring to the Court’s attention.  Are Plaintiffs in a position at this point to identify:  (1) the discrete issues Plaintiffs plan to raise with the Court, and (2) the subset of those issues that Plaintiffs would prefer to address in writing?  Defendants could then confer internally to see if we agree, and if so, we could propose dates for a briefing schedule.   If it’s easier to discuss by phone, that works for me.   Joe    Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: jcox@refugeerights.org [mailto:jcox@refugeerights.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:03 PM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; 'Melissa Keaney' ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' ; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' ; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Tana Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-12 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 5 Lin' ; 'Emily Chiang' ; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; Liz.Sweet@hias.Org; Kmeyer@refugeerights.Org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' ; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' ; DLJFSTRUMP@skadden.com Subject: Doe/JFS call to chambers   Hi Joe:   Thank you for being available this afternoon for a call to chambers.  To maximize the utility of that call, we wanted to let you know that we intend to ask the Court’s permission to file a written motion addressing a few of the parties’ discovery disputes, and we wanted to ask whether Defendants have a position on that request and/or preferences on a briefing schedule.  We are also happy to jump on the phone in advance of our call to chambers if that would be easier.   Thanks for your time, Justin     ---Justin B. Cox Senior Supervising Attorney   International Refugee Assistance Project Urban Justice Center PO Box 170208 Atlanta, GA 30317 jcox@refugeerights.org www.refugeerights.org Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook   This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding, or saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you believe that you are not the intended recipient. Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-13 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 3 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit M Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-13 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) jcox@refugeerights.org; "Melissa Keaney"; Snell, Kevin (CIV); "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)"; Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV) "Aguiar, Lauren E"; "Sheehan Davis, Abigail"; mhirose@refugeerights.org; "Linda Evarts"; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)"; "Tana Lin"; "Emily Chiang"; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; "Deepa Alagesan"; liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; "MacNeil, Madeleine P"; dljfstrump@skadden.com RE: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:27:05 PM Dear Justin, et al.,   Thanks for sending along the draft 30(b)(6) notices.  We are reviewing and will be in touch soon.    Regarding Doe-JFS_State_00000067, we appreciate Plaintiffs sharing with us your concern about that e-mail.  This approach seems vastly preferable to some of our earlier exchanges, in which Plaintiffs expressed general concerns about Defendants’ representations to the Court but did not identify any corresponding documents within a production universe that encompasses nearly 800 pages.  That being said, we are puzzled by Plaintiffs’ concerns about Doe-JFS State_ 00000067, because we see no inconsistency between that document and Defendants’ prior representations (or the Court’s preliminary injunction Order, for that matter).  If you’re able to identify for us the “apparent discrepancy” that you referenced earlier, we’d be happy to look into it.    Best, Joe   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     From: jcox@refugeerights.org [mailto:jcox@refugeerights.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:39 AM To: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) ; 'Melissa Keaney' ; Snell, Kevin (CIV) ; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)' ; Bensing, Daniel (CIV) Cc: 'Aguiar, Lauren E' ; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail' ; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts' ; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Tana Lin' ; 'Emily Chiang' ; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan' ; liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org' Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-13 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 3 ; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)' ; 'Alison Gaffney' ; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P' ; dljfstrump@skadden.com Subject: draft 30(b)(6) deposition notices   Dear Joe,   Thanks again for talking yesterday; we appreciate it.   I’m writing to follow up on something we discussed: attached please find draft 30(b)(6) notices, one directed at the Department of State and the other DHS (the notices are otherwise identical).  We appreciate your stated willingness to give this request genuine, good-faith consideration, and to let us know if your clients would be willing to provide one or more deponents to testify on these mootness-related topics, so as to obviate the need for motion practice on this issue.  As we have stated before (and as the notices repeat), we can be reasonably flexible on timing and location. We’re happy to discuss if that would be helpful, but given the timing, we need to have it resolved by mid-day Friday.   Also apropos of our discussion yesterday, we wanted to bring to your attention the discrepancy between the email dated December 26, 2017 at Doe-JFS State_ 00000067, and Defendants’ prior descriptions of it.  See, e.g., Gauger Decl., ECF 114-1 ¶ 5; Higgins Decl., ECF 114-2 ¶ 5; Defs.’ Notice of Compliance, ECF No. 114, at 3.  If Defendants have an explanation for this apparent discrepancy, we would be very interested to hear it.   Thank you for your time, Justin     ---- Justin B. Cox Senior Supervising Attorney   International Refugee Assistance Project Urban Justice Center PO Box 170208 Atlanta, GA 30317 jcox@refugeerights.org www.refugeerights.org Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook   This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding, or saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you believe that you are not the intended recipient.   Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-14 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 3 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit N Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-14 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Dugan, Joseph (CIV) jcox@refugeerights.org; "Melissa Keaney"; "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)"; "Aguiar, Lauren E"; "Sheehan Davis, Abigail"; mhirose@refugeerights.org; "Linda Evarts"; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)"; "Tana Lin"; "Emily Chiang"; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; "Deepa Alagesan"; liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; "MacNeil, Madeleine P"; dljfstrump@skadden.com Snell, Kevin (CIV); Bensing, Daniel (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV) Doe, JFS - 10/17/18 re-release and updated privilege log Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:37:23 PM Priv Log revised for service 10.17.18.xlsx Dear Counsel,   This evening, we are re-releasing on JEFS and via two discs (per our established practice) 24 documents for which we have adjusted redactions.  The password for tonight’s production is   As I noted during our call of yesterday, in light of Plaintiffs’ request that Defendants reconsider their privilege assertions, Defendants have taken another close look at all of the documents for which Defendants asserted either LES or deliberative process privilege.  Without conceding the propriety of our redactions or making any concessions as to any future documents or other forms of discovery in the event that Judge Robart allows any further discovery, Defendants have decided to (1) lift the small number of deliberative process redactions and (2) lift certain of the LES redactions.  Defendants have also identified certain passages of text that should have been redacted as LES in the first instance.  Pursuant to our 502(d) agreement, we request that Plaintiffs destroy all of the initially released versions of those documents and certify to us that all copies have been destroyed.  We further request that Plaintiffs sequester and destroy any notes taken about the material that is now redacted.  If Plaintiffs disclosed such information, we request that you take reasonable steps to retrieve it and destroy it, and that you notify us of that disclosure and your efforts to retrieve and destroy the information.   Here is the list of documents included in tonight’s production (identified by opening Bates number): · Doe-JFS_State_00000173 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_State_00000181 [lifted and added redactions] · Doe-JFS_State_00000187 [added redactions] · Doe-JFS_State_00000213 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_State_00000225 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000003 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000017 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000025 [added redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000038 [lifted and added redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000044 [added redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000156 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000213 [lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000266 [added redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000277 [added and lifted redactions] · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000298 [lifted redactions] Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-14 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 3 · · · · · · · · · Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000339 [lifted redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000353 [lifted redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000373 [added redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000422 [added redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000475 [lifted redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000497 [added redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000520 [added redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000524 [added redactions] Doe-JFS_USCIS_00000529 [lifted redactions]   Finally, in light of the various changes we are making (both lifting and adding redactions), we have revised our privilege log.  An updated version, which should capture the current universe of documents redacted for privilege, is attached.   Please let me know if you have questions.   Best, Joe   Joseph C. Dugan Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW, Room 11212 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 514-3259 (phone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) Joseph.Dugan@usdoj.gov     Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-15 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 4 Doe v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-00178 (JLR) Jewish Family Service of Seattle v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-01707 (JLR) Exhibit O Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-15 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 4 From: To: Subject: Date: Justin Cox Snell, Kevin (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV); "Melissa Keaney"; "Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)"; Bensing, Daniel (CIV); "Aguiar, Lauren E"; "Sheehan Davis, Abigail"; mhirose@refugeerights.org; "Linda Evarts"; "Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)"; "Tana Lin"; "Emily Chiang"; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; "Deepa Alagesan"; liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; "Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)"; "Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org"; "Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)"; "Alison Gaffney"; "MacNeil, Madeleine P"; dljfstrump@skadden.com Re: Draft protective order Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:40:35 PM Dear Kevin,   Thank you for your email. You are correct that, in an attempt to arrive at a compromise to obviate the need to seek the Court’s assistance, and to avoid having to brief the issue, we asked Defendants multiple times whether they would consider producing this information under an appropriate protective order. Defendants never responded to that query at all, except to say that they were standing on their claims of privilege. As a consequence, we had to spend precious space briefing it in a motion for which Defendants insisted on a strict page limit, limiting the issues we could raise with the Court (including, for example, any number of other privilege claims that are similarly unjustified). We appreciate that Defendants are now reconsidering their claim of privilege, but since — as we explained in our letter dated October 4 — this information is not privileged at all, and because the issue is now teed up for Judge Robart, we are content for the Court to rule on Defendants’ claim of privilege, and do not think it appropriate that this unprivileged information be produced subject to a protective order, particularly the overly strict one Defendants are proposing.    On a related topic, and as you know, we have similarly asked Defendants multiple times whether they are willing to produce information about individual refugees under an appropriate protective order, and Defendants have never responded to any of those queries. As I am sure you saw, we reiterated this willingness in our motion to compel. If Defendants would be willing to produce this information pursuant to an appropriate protective order, we would be willing to consider, by way of compromise, an appropriate protective order that also covered the SAO information. That said, we think an appropriate protective order would permit Plaintiffs’ counsel to share the information with their employees, experts and potential experts, and clients as needed to continue to litigate this case, and after advising them of the protective order.  Please let us know if you would like to discuss.   ---Justin B. Cox Senior Supervising Attorney   International Refugee Assistance Project Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-15 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 4 Urban Justice Center PO Box 170208 Atlanta, GA 30317 jcox@refugeerights.org www.refugeerights.org Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook   This message and its attachments are sent by a law office and may contain information that is confidential and protected by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying, forwarding, or saving this email and any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately if you believe that you are not the intended recipient. From: Snell, Kevin (CIV) Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:55 AM To: jcox@refugeerights.org; Snell, Kevin (CIV); Dugan, Joseph (CIV); 'Melissa Keaney'; 'Sepe, Cristina (Perkins Coie)'; Bensing, Daniel (CIV); 'Aguiar, Lauren E'; 'Sheehan Davis, Abigail'; mhirose@refugeerights.org; 'Linda Evarts'; 'Burman, David J. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Tana Lin'; 'Emily Chiang'; lnowlin@aclu-wa.org; 'Deepa Alagesan'; liz.sweet@hias.org; kmeyer@refugeerights.org; 'Staniar, Lauren (Perkins Coie)'; 'Mark.Hetfield@hias.Org'; 'Roberts, Tyler S. (Perkins Coie)'; 'Alison Gaffney'; 'MacNeil, Madeleine P'; dljfstrump@skadden.com Subject: Draft protective order   Counsel,   Attached please find a draft stipulated protective order for your consideration and review.  Although Defendants maintain that our LES redactions, including those LES redactions applied to information that could reveal the identities of countries on the SAO list (“SAO redactions”), were proper in the first instance, we have continued to explore ways to amicably resolve discovery disputes between the parties.  Upon further review and consideration, Defendants have determined, strictly for purposes of this litigation, that we will lift the SAO redactions, provided that Plaintiffs agree to a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of this information in unredacted form.  Based on our prior discussions, we understand that Plaintiffs are generally amenable to this approach.   At your earliest convenience, please let us know if Plaintiffs have edits to the attached draft.  We generally sought to incorporate the W.D. Wash. model protective order where appropriate.  We are also happy to discuss by phone if that would be helpful.   Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 169-15 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 4 Thanks, and best regards,     Kevin   Kevin Snell Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 202.305.0924