Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 10 1 THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 JOHN DOE, et al., CASE NO. C17-0178JLR 10 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL 11 v. 12 DONALD TRUMP, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE, et al., Plaintiffs, 16 17 18 CASE NO. C17-1707JLR v. (RELATING TO BOTH CASES) DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) 142103459.1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 2 of 10 1 At issue in Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Compel (hereinafter, “Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 2 166, is whether the discovery Plaintiffs seek is relevant to questions of jurisdictional fact and 3 proportional to the needs of the case. Id. at 2-3. Defendants’ Opposition (“Op.”), ECF No. 169, 4 scarcely engages with that standard, and instead seeks to distract from the mounting evidence that 5 the government failed to heed this Court’s order to take those steps necessary to undo the unlawful 6 suspensions. Beyond baseless process complaints, Defendants try to explain away the 7 inconsistencies in the documents and data they previously deemed more than adequate to evaluate 8 their injunction compliance through the submission of four new fact declarations. In so doing, 9 Defendants both concede that the written discovery thus far raises legitimate questions and 10 continue to expose even more concerns, further underscoring why the four depositions and six 11 interrogatories that Plaintiffs have requested are necessary. To the extent Defendants engage with 12 the discovery standard, their arguments about burden are belied by the record. Finally, Defendants 13 fail to meet the requirements for their privilege claim, and their reasons for withholding “non- 14 responsive” information are counter-factual. The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion. 15 1. Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs did not satisfy their meet-and-confer obligations, 16 Op. at 2-5, is supported by neither the record nor legal authority. The parties have been in continual 17 contact over the course of the compressed discovery period, and specifically have discussed 18 Defendants’ objections to the discovery on which Plaintiffs moved to compel. See Exs. 27, 31-37, 19 39, & K; Keaney Decl. ¶ 62. 1 As to the depositions, Plaintiffs asked for Defendants’ position well 20 before filing the Motion, Ex. 32; Defendants replied that they “doubt[ed]” that they would be 21 amenable to producing deponents and would “likely need to seek guidance from the Court.” Ex. 22 33. When Plaintiffs requested that Defendants specify their objections to the depositions, Ex. 34, 23 Defendants did not do so, but represented that the parties’ disagreements regarding depositions 24 and other issues were “sufficiently defined” to bring to the Court, Ex. K. The next day, the parties 25 worked out an agreement to brief the issues addressed in the Motion, including the four 26 depositions, see Ex. 39, and the parties’ meet-and-confer obligations were satisfied. See, e.g., 27 28 1 For the Court’s reference, Exhibits numbered 1 through 38 are at ECF No. 167-2; Exhibits lettered A through O are at ECF No. 169-1 through ECF No. 169-15; and Exhibits numbered 39 and 40 are attached to the instant filing. PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 1 142103459.1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 3 of 10 1 Rosario v. Starbucks Corp., 2017 WL 5999634, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2017); Signatours 2 Corp. v. Hartford, 2016 WL 2930435, at *2 n.1 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2016). 3 Even after that briefing agreement was in place, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a phone call 4 “to take one more shot at narrowing the issues on which we presently disagree.” Ex. 39. During 5 that call, Defendants stated they would oppose any pure fact depositions on proportionality 6 grounds, see Ex. 36, but requested that Plaintiffs serve Rule 30(b)(6) notices so they could further 7 consider their position, and Plaintiffs did so, see Keaney Decl. ¶ 42; Ex. 2. Defendants responded 8 on October 19, to demand that Plaintiffs articulate the “specific questions” they want to ask in the 9 Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, so that Defendants could “try to determine” whether they would be 10 willing to offer a compromise. Ex. 35. Rule 30(b)(6) requires parties to identify the “the matters 11 for examination,” not provide a deposition outline, and Defendants have never claimed the notices 12 fall short of that standard. Plaintiffs therefore declined to accede to Defendants’ demand but did 13 explain further why they believed depositions of agency personnel are necessary. Ex 36. That the 14 parties again reached an impasse on this issue does not suggest that Plaintiffs were playing 15 “games,” as Defendants accuse, but that the parties have a disagreement that is ripe for review. 16 Defendants’ suggestion that they may not have been on notice of Plaintiffs’ concerns 17 regarding their injunction compliance, Op. at 2-3, is difficult to credit. The factual and legal bases 18 for Plaintiffs’ narrow jurisdictional discovery requests have been extensively ventilated over 19 multiple rounds of briefing over the last ten months. Plaintiffs were not obligated to explain to 20 Defendants’ counsel the documents Defendants produced about their own actions, and Defendants 21 do not cite any authority to the contrary. Moreover, Plaintiffs did alert Defendants’ counsel to the 22 fact that the documents were not fully consistent with Defendants’ prior representations, and 23 explained that the deposition notices and interrogatories reflect areas that raised concerns for 24 Plaintiffs after their review of the written discovery. See Exs. 32, 34, 36. 25 Defendants’ attacks on the Keaney Declaration, Op. at 1-2, are also meritless. The issues 26 the Declaration describes—the parties’ prior correspondence and discussion, and the information 27 Defendants have produced—are ones of fact. Defendants assert that it is “replete with improper 28 argument,” but do not cite a single example. A review of the declaration demonstrates that its PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 2 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 4 of 10 1 assertions are factual, and generally both explain and authenticate the underlying documents 2 substantiating the factual assertions. Defendants do cite examples in support of their 3 characterization of the Declaration as “misleading,” but those citations show the opposite. 2 4 2. Defendants do not substantiate the claim that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Interrogatories 5 impose an undue burden. The third Gauger Declaration (Ex. A) details the time PRM/A spent 6 responding to past interrogatories, 3 but conspicuously absent is any estimate of the time needed to 7 respond to the six in the Fourth Set. 4 While Plaintiffs are sympathetic to USRAP being under- 8 resourced, see Ex. A ¶¶ 3 & 6, that self-inflicted injury is not a legitimate basis for an undue burden 9 objection. See, e.g., Costantino v. City of Atlantic City, 152 F. Supp. 3d 311, 328 (D.N.J. 2015) 10 (explaining at length how and why a governmental defendant “cannot shirk its responsibilities by 11 failing to dedicate sufficient resources to respond to appropriate and necessary discovery”). 12 Defendants’ burden objection to the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions is premised on their 13 assertion that the depositions would be duplicative of the written discovery, Op. at 5, but as 14 Plaintiffs have explained, the opposite is true—the depositions are needed to resolve 15 inconsistencies and address gaps in the written discovery Defendants have produced thus far. 5 See 16 Mot. at 3-8; Ex. 36. Defendants’ attempt to explain away those issues is remarkable, and 17 demonstrates why the depositions are needed. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that the written 18 discovery they produced was more than adequate to assess mootness, Ex. 31, see also Ex. 30 at 2 19 (making the same representation in advance of producing anything); and claimed the documents 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Defendants assert, for example, that the declaration misleads by stating that Defendants, in a letter dated August 7, “‘altogether refus[ed] to respond’ to RFP No. 3.” Op. at 2 (quoting Keaney Decl. ¶ 6). Defendants’ letter stated: “we do not intend to respond to ‘Request for Production No. 3’ as written.” Ex. 21 at 2 (emphases in original). 3 Defendants’ complaints about the amount of time spent responding to those past interrogatories ignore both that those requests represented a narrowed version of Plaintiffs’ third document request, served at Defendants’ request and in lieu of Defendants responding to the third document request, see Keaney Decl. ¶¶ 7, 21-26; and that Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ counsel’s representation that Defendants could respond to those interrogatories “without undue burden.” Ex. 30; see also Ex. 36. While Defendants were seemingly mistaken in that assessment, Plaintiffs can hardly be faulted for relying on Defendants’ representation. 4 There is reason to believe that they would not impose a significant burden; Defendants’ new declarations reveal, for example, that they did not grant a single waiver to the Agency Memo’s suspensions, Ex. C ¶ 5; Ex. D ¶ 6, which would mean the answer to Interrogatory No. 36 (Ex. 1 at 7) simply “None.” 5 Defendants similarly object to the two proposed fact depositions as duplicative, Op. at 5, but ignore that Plaintiffs want to depose these witnesses specifically about their declarations that Defendants have submitted, which now total six. See Mot. at 10 & n.16. Additionally, while the Middle District of Alabama case Defendants cite, Op. at 5, is plainly inapposite, Plaintiffs have no objection to taking the 30(b)(6) depositions first and cancelling the fact depositions of Associate Director Higgins and Acting Director Gauger if the earlier depositions obviate their need. PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 3 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 5 of 10 1 they produced “show unequivocally that we complied with the injunction and no longer maintain 2 any semblance of a ‘ban’ on processing/admissions of SAO and FTJ refugee applicants,” Ex. 26 3 at 1. Yet, Defendants felt compelled to submit four new fact declarations, spanning nearly 30 4 pages, to try to address issues evident in those documents. Further demonstrating the inadequacy 5 of Defendants’ written discovery, the Ruppel Declaration (Ex. E) references at least three emails 6 (including two in it its second paragraph) that Defendants have not produced to Plaintiffs. 7 Moreover, the new declarations make clear that additional discovery is necessary. The 8 Ruppel Declaration, for example, clarifies that RSCs did not begin putting forward SAO cases for 9 digital stamping until nearly three weeks post-injunction, Ex. E ¶ 3, which is consistent with 10 Plaintiffs’ concern that RSCs were not immediately instructed to stop following Defendants’ pre- 11 injunction guidance, see Mot. at 3. The same day that RSCs began putting forward SAO refugee 12 cases for stamping, Defendants issued new instructions to USCIS officers to “hold off on 13 stamping” SAO cases, an instruction that remained in place until February 2018. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. As a 14 result, only 29 SAO cases near the end of processing were approved and stamped after the 15 injunction but before the Nielsen Memo, id. ¶ 4—which caused, by ordering what became the 16 Pipeline DHS Review (“PDR”), a new de facto suspension on all post-interview SAO cases that 17 had not yet been approved, 6 see id. ¶¶ 9-13. Currently, more than 6,000 SAO cases in late stages 18 of processing are completely stalled by the PDR. See id. ¶ 15. 19 Defendants’ actions matter. John Doe 1 is an Iraqi refugee whose life is in danger because 20 he served as an interpreter for the U.S. military. He was approved for resettlement and Ready For 21 Departure (“RFD”) when the Agency Memo was issued. See JFS, ECF No. 52. He has not traveled 22 and inexplicably appears to be caught in the PDR, see Ex. 40, even though the PDR applies only 23 to SAO nationals whose cases were not approved before January 29, 2018, Ex. E ¶ 10, and 24 Defendants claimed his specific case was “processed” the first business day after the injunction, 25 ECF No. 142 at 4. John Doe 1 and many others who were RFD on October 24, 2017 (including 26 27 28 6 Defendants do not dispute that the PDR called for by the Nielsen Memo resulted in a new de facto suspension on SAO refugee processing. Compare Mot. at 4 (asserting as much); with Op. at 10-11 (responding only that the PDR is “beyond this lawsuit”); but see ECF No. 145 at 4 (“The Nielsen Memorandum did not . . . call for any other suspension or deprioritization of any classes of refugee applicants.”). PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 4 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 6 of 10 1 many non-SAO nationals) should have benefited from this Court’s injunction, but have yet to 2 travel, and the reason(s) remain exceedingly unclear. 7 3 3. Defendants’ timeliness objection to the interrogatories and depositions, Op. at 6-7, 4 ignores the relevant inquiry, which is whether there is good cause to modify the scheduling order 5 to accommodate the requests. See Mot. at 9 (citing Wealth by Health, Inc. v. Ericson, No. C09- 6 1444JLR, 2010 WL 11566111, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2010)). As Plaintiffs have explained, 7 see id., they worked to process Defendants’ discovery productions—virtually all of which 8 represented new information to Plaintiffs—expeditiously, while also engaging Defendants about 9 their search and claims of privilege. Given the uncontested record evidence of Plaintiffs’ diligence, 10 Defendants’ timeliness objection is unjustified and good cause exists to modify the schedule. 11 4. Defendants fail to meet two procedural requirements for claiming the “law 12 enforcement” privilege to withhold information about the 11 countries on the SAO list. 8 First, the 13 privilege (assuming it exists) must be formally asserted “by the head of the department having 14 control over the requested information.” Mot. at 11 n.17 (citation omitted); accord Kerr v. U.S. 15 Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). Defendants instead proffer a 16 declaration from J. Neal Latta, relying on authority purportedly delegated to him, see Ex. B ¶ 2, 17 while providing no authority holding this delegation is permissible. Where courts allow this 18 privilege to be claimed through delegation, they require it be accompanied by a delegation order 19 and often guidelines for its use as well. See generally Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 20 651, 656-58 (D. Or. 2009). “‘These are not merely technical requirements,’” and the failure to 21 fulfill them here means the privilege “does not apply.” Id. at 658 (citation omitted). 22 Second, the Latta Declaration fails to explain why, when the information is in the public 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Only 4 FTJs who were RFD when the Agency Memo issued have been admitted since this Court’s order, see Ex. F at 111-17, and those four are presumably Joseph Doe and his family members, who Defendants may have admitted in an attempt to moot his claims by creating an exception for them. See ECF No. 106 at 11-12 nn.9 & 10. 8 Defendants wrongly claim this Court “previously indicated” they “need not reveal this information to litigate this matter,” Op. at 7, as their own citation reveals. Defendants also misrepresent the protective order discussion. On October 4, Plaintiffs explained at length how none of Defendants’ “law enforcement” privilege claims were adequate (including numerous covering non-SAO information), asked Defendants to re-evaluate them, and expressed a willingness to entertain an “appropriate protective order” covering anything legitimately privileged. Ex. 27 at 5-6. Defendants did not respond to that query for nearly four weeks—until more than a week after the Motion was filed— and even then, offered only the SAO information, and under an “attorneys’ eyes only” protective order. See Ex. O. PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 5 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 7 of 10 1 domain, it nonetheless falls within the scope of the privilege. See Mot. at 11 n.17. It recites 2 repeatedly that the government “publicly acknowledging” this information would be problematic, 3 but these conclusory assertions are insufficient. See, e.g., Wagafe v. Trump, 2017 WL 5990134, at 4 *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017); see also Wagafe v. Trump, 2017 WL 5989162, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 5 Nov. 28, 2017) (“The Government may not merely say those magic words—‘national security 6 threat’—and automatically have its requests granted in this forum.”). Moreover, the record reflects 7 that the government does routinely and publicly reveal “information from which th[e] identities 8 [of SAO countries] may be inferred,” Latta Decl. ¶ 11—see ECF No. 132-1 at 2 (State Department 9 email revealing that Iraq is on the SAO list), ECF No. 139-1 at 2 (same as to Somalia). 10 5. Defendants’ justification for redacting and withholding information they deem 11 “nonresponsive” is based on their own “interpretation” of Plaintiffs’ document request (over 12 Plaintiffs’ sustained objections), Op. at 9-10, and is contrary to its explicit text, see Mot. at 11-12. 13 Defendants cannot rewrite Plaintiffs’ request and then deem the information they withhold as 14 “nonresponsive.” Defendants cite no authority supporting their Kafkaesque approach. 9 15 Defendants’ assertion that “Plaintiffs demand a fishing expedition that invades individuals’ 16 privacy,” Op. at 10, is counter-factual. The information at issue here is limited: literally all of it is 17 contained within, attached to, or expressly referenced in already-produced documents that, per 18 Defendants, reflect “final, formal guidance documents concerning the processing of SAO or [FTJ] 19 refugee applicants.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted, alteration in original). Nor do Defendants contest 20 that a protective order would address the privacy concerns. See Mot. at 12; see also Ex. O (by way 21 of compromise, offering a protective order covering both personally-identifiable information of 22 refugees and the SAO information Defendants claim is privileged). 10 23 24 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their Joint Motion to Compel and issue their Proposed Order, ECF No. 166-1. 25 26 27 28 9 Defendants assert that “many courts” have held that “nonresponsive text included in or appended to a potentially responsive document” need not be produced, but they cite only out-of-Circuit cases holding that, in certain circumstances, irrelevant information may be redacted. Op. at 9-10 & n.9. Relevance and responsiveness are not the same thing, and Defendants have never asserted that the withheld information is irrelevant. 10 Plaintiffs seek to correct an error in footnote 7 of page 6 of their Motion, which mistakenly said no SAO checks were “requested” for FTJ refugees outside of two RSCs, when it should have said “completed.” PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 6 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 8 of 10 1 Respectfully submitted, DATED: November 9, 2018 2 /s/ Justin B. Cox Linda Evarts, Pro Hac Vice Mariko Hirose, Pro Hac Vice Kathryn C. Meyer, Pro Hac Vice Deepa Alagesan, Pro Hac Vice International Refugee Assistance Project 40 Rector Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (646) 459-3044 levarts@refugeerights.org mhirose@refugeerights.org kmeyer@refugeerights.org dalagesan@refugeerights.org Justin B. Cox, Pro Hac Vice International Refugee Assistance Project PO Box 170208 Atlanta, GA 30317 Tel: (678) 404-9119 jcox@refugeerights.org 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 David Burman, WSBA No. 10611 Lauren Watts Staniar, WSBA No. 48741 Tyler Roberts, WSBA No. 52688 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 dburman@perkinscoie.com lstaniar@perkinscoie.com troberts@perkinscoie.com Elizabeth Sweet, Pro Hac Vice Mark Hetfield, Pro Hac Vice HIAS, Inc. 1300 Spring Street, Suite 500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: 301-844-7300 liz.sweet@hias.org mark.hetfield@hias.org Melissa S. Keaney, Pro Hac Vice Esther H. Sung, Pro Hac Vice National Immigration Law Center 3450 Wilshire Blvd, #108-62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 639-3900 Fax: (213) 639-3911 tumlin@nilc.org keaney@nilc.org sung@nilc.org Lauren E. Aguiar, Pro Hac Vice Mollie M. Kornreich, Pro Hac Vice Abigail E. Davis, Pro Hac Vice Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 735-3000 Fax: (212) 735-2000 lauren.aguiar@probonolaw.com mollie.kornreich@probonolaw.com abigail.sheehan@probonolaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Jewish Family Service, et al. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 7 142103459.1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 9 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION By: /s/ Emily Chiang /s/ Lisa Nowlin Emily Chiang, WSBA # 50517 Lisa Nowlin, WSBA # 51512 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624-2184 Email: echiang@aclu-wa.org lnowlin@aclu-wa.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Doe, et al. 9 10 11 12 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko By: /s/ Tana Lin By: /s/ Amy Williams-Derry By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser By: /s/ Alison S. Gaffney Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA # 16569 Tana Lin, WSBA # 35271 Amy Williams-Derry, WSBA # 28711 Derek W. Loeser, WSBA # 24274 Alison S. Gaffney, WSBA # 45565 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com tlin@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com agaffney@kellerrohrback.com By: /s/ Laurie B. Ashton Laurie B. Ashton (admitted pro hac vice) 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600 Telephone: (602) 248-0088 Facsimile: (602) 248-2822 Email: lashton@kellerrohrback.com 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ Alison Chase Alison Chase (admitted pro hac vice) 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Doe, et al./Cooperating Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLS.’ REPLY ISO JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR; No. 17-cv-1707-JLR) – 8 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000 Case 2:17-cv-00178-JLR Document 170 Filed 11/09/18 Page 10 of 10 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on November 9, 2018, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing 3 document and all attachments and exhibits with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system 4 which will send notification of such filing to all of the registered CM/ECF users for this case. 5 DATED this 9th day of November, 2018. 6 /s/ Tyler Roberts 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (No. 17-cv-0178-JLR) – 1 Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 T: 206.359.8000 / F: 206.359.9000