Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Steven M. Bauer (Bar No. 135067) steven.bauer@lw.com Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659) sadik.huseny@lw.com Amit Makker (Bar No. 280747) amit.makker@lw.com Shannon D. Lankenau (Bar No. 294263) shannon.lankenau@lw.com 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.391.0600 Facsimile: 415.395.8095 LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW Kristen Clarke (pro hac vice forthcoming) kclarke@lawyerscommittee.org Jon M. Greenbaum (Bar No. 166733) jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org Ezra D. Rosenberg (admitted pro hac vice) erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org Dorian L. Spence (pro hac vice forthcoming) dspence@lawyerscommittee.org Ajay P. Saini (admitted pro hac vice) asaini@lawyerscommittee.org Maryum Jordan (Bar No. 325447) mjordan@lawyerscommittee.org Pooja Chaudhuri (Bar No. 314847) pchaudhuri@lawyerscommittee.org 1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 202.662.8600 Facsimile: 202.783.0857 Additional counsel and representation information listed in signature block LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Richard P. Bress (admitted pro hac vice) rick.bress@lw.com Melissa Arbus Sherry (admitted pro hac vice) melissa.sherry@lw.com Anne W. Robinson (admitted pro hac vice) anne.robinson@lw.com Tyce R. Walters (admitted pro hac vice) tyce.walters@lw.com Genevieve P. Hoffman (admitted pro hac vice) genevieve.hoffman@lw.com Gemma Donofrio (admitted pro hac vice) gemma.donofrio@lw.com 555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 202.637.2200 Facsimile: 202.637.2201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 19 20 21 NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE et al., Plaintiffs, v. 24 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., et al., 22 23 CASE NO. 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Defendants. Date: Time: Place: Judge: TBD TBD Courtroom 8 Hon. Lucy H. Koh 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 9 1 I. 2 INTRODUCTION Yesterday, Defendants responded to the question the Court posed on August 26 to 3 determine, practically speaking, how far in advance of the September 30 deadline the Court 4 needed to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay and preliminary injunction. Defendants’ answer— 5 after waiting a full week—was a three-sentence, non-explanation: immediately. According to 6 Defendants, they have already started shutting down the Census count a month before the 7 already accelerated deadline, and in the middle of litigation challenging the legitimacy of that 8 accelerated deadline. In light of this information, Plaintiffs have no recourse but to ask this 9 Court to enter a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to maintain the status quo and to prevent 10 Defendants from taking any further actions to implement the shortened timelines in the August 3, 11 2020 Rush Plan, 1 until the September 17 hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending preliminary injunction 12 motion. Otherwise, Plaintiffs and the public interest will be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ 13 unilateral actions even before the parties’ mutually agreed briefing schedule is complete. 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION During the August 26, 2020 Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the Court asked the 16 parties when a ruling on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction was needed in order to 17 provide meaningful relief. Plaintiffs explained that their answer necessarily would depend, in 18 part, on whether and when the Census Bureau intended to wind down its field operations in 19 advance of the September 30, 2020 deadline imposed by the Rush Plan. And counsel for 20 Defendants was unable to provide an answer to that question. The Court accordingly asked 21 Defendants to provide the answer promptly in a separate filing, rejecting their request to delay 22 answering until their opposition brief on Friday, September 4. The Court’s order required 23 Defendants to “file a statement identifying when the Census Bureau will begin taking steps to 24 conclude its field operations” by September 2, 2020. Dkt. 45 at 2. 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 1 The Court asked Defendants what terminology the Census Bureau uses to refer to the April 13 and August 3 Plans, but allowed them to answer that question in their opposition filing due later this week. Plaintiffs accordingly continue to refer to the April 13, 2020 Plan as the “COVID-19 Plan” and the August 3, 2020 Plan as the “Rush Plan,” for ease of reference and to remain consistent with prior filings. 1 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 9 1 Yesterday, Defendants filed a Statement purporting to respond to the Court’s question. 2 Dkt. 63 (“Statement”). Defendants’ response is a single, three-sentence paragraph telling the 3 Court that (1) “the Census Bureau has already begun taking steps to conclude field operations”; 4 (2) “[t]hose operations are scheduled to be wound-down throughout September by geographic 5 regions based on response rates within those regions”; and (3) “any order by the Court to extend 6 field operations, regardless of whether those operations in a particular geographic location are 7 scheduled to be wound-down by September 30 or by a date before then, could not be 8 implemented at this point without significant costs and burdens to the Census Bureau.” Id. 9 Defendants’ response is lacking in detail and clarity in crucial respects. But the one thing 10 it makes clear is that the irreparable harm detailed in Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion 11 has already begun and, accordingly, more immediate relief is needed. 12 Defendants admit that, sometime before September 2, they had “already” started to 13 conclude field operations. As explained in Plaintiffs’ pending motion for a stay and preliminary 14 injunction, those field operations did not even begin in the vast majority of this country until 15 August 9. See Dkt. 36, Pls.’ Mot. for Stay & Prelim. Injunc. at 10, 18; see also Dkt. 36-2, 16 Thompson Decl. ¶ 19. So, according to Defendants, they began taking steps to end field 17 operations in some geographic regions after only three weeks. And Defendants say they fully 18 intend to continue winding down such operations “throughout September.” Dkt. 63. Immediate 19 relief is needed to prevent the irreparable harm Plaintiffs and the public interest will suffer as a 20 result. See Dkt. 36 at 12-13, 17-21, 25-27, 29-32; see also Dkt. 36-2, Thompson Decl. ¶¶ 15-20; 21 Dkt. 36-3, Hillygus Decl. ¶¶ 5, 13, 20; Dkt. 36-4, Louis Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 20. 22 The urgency of this motion is entirely of Defendants’ making. The parties had agreed to 23 an expedited preliminary injunction schedule with the September 30 deadline front of mind. 24 Defendants waited a full week after the CMC to inform the Court that they had already started to 25 shut down operations. Defendants presumably knew that before yesterday. And they also knew 26 why the Court was asking: to determine when a decision was needed. If Defendants’ answer was 27 essentially going to be “now,” they should have informed the Court and Plaintiffs immediately. 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 2 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 4 of 9 1 Nor can Defendants rely on their own failure to provide crucial details to avoid the 2 remedy necessitated by the time crunch they created. The Statement says merely that the Bureau 3 is winding down field operations “by geographic regions based on response rates within those 4 regions.” Dkt. 63. But which regions, exactly? What response rate triggers the decision to shut 5 down operations early? 2 How is that response rate calculated? How many visits does an 6 enumerator have to make to a household before the Bureau marks it as complete? Is the Bureau 7 already starting to substitute administrative records and proxy responses for the enumerator 8 contact attempts they ordinarily would make in order to achieve the response rates that will 9 enable it to shut down operations? 3 Defendants provide no answers. 10 All Plaintiffs know is that Defendants are already starting to close down field operations 11 a full month before the already accelerated September 30 deadline. This leaves Plaintiffs with no 12 choice but to ask the Court for a TRO to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the 13 preliminary injunction motion. See Lamon v. Pliler, No. CIVS03-0423FCD-CMK-P, 2006 WL 14 120088, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2006) (“The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is 15 to preserve the status quo pending a more complete hearing.”); Whitman v. Hawaiian Tug & 16 Barge Corp./Young Bros. Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1228 (D. Haw. 1998) 17 (“A temporary restraining order is designed to preserve the status quo until there is an 18 opportunity to hold a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction.”). The reasons 19 preliminary relief is warranted have been briefed, and the standard for issuing a TRO is the same 20 as the standard for a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox 21 Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 22 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Nacio Sys., Inc. v. Gottlieb, No. C 07-3481 PJH, 2007 WL 23 2 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO For example, San Diego has been reported as one of the regions in which the Bureau intends to shut down field operations weeks early. See Exs. A, B. Yet, as of today, the non-response follow up completion rate for the San Diego area census office is only 66.0%. See Ex. C. The Bureau’s own data suggests that most regions are less than 60% complete, and not a single region is marked as “complete.” See Ex. C. 3 For example, according to an internal Bureau document recently released by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Bureau intended to make certain “adjustments” to nonresponse follow up operations in order to meet the Rush Plan’s new deadline. See Ex. D at 7. This document also underscores that each passing day intensifies the harm caused by the Bureau’s early termination of non-response follow up operations. 3 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 5 of 9 1 2238210, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2007). In the interest of time, and to avoid duplicative filings, 2 Plaintiffs incorporate their preliminary injunction briefing (Dkts. 36, 37) here as the required 3 memorandum of points and authorities (Local Rule 65-1(a)(2)), and remain available for a 4 hearing or any further proceeding at the Court’s convenience. 5 6 Plaintiffs’ counsel provided Defendants’ counsel with notice earlier today that Plaintiffs would be filing this TRO motion. 4 7 8 Dated: September 3, 2020 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 9 By: /s/ Melissa Arbus Sherry Melissa Arbus Sherry 10 Steven M. Bauer (Bar No. 135067) steven.bauer@lw.com Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659) sadik.huseny@lw.com Amit Makker (Bar No. 280747) amit.makker@lw.com Shannon D. Lankenau (Bar. No. 294263) shannon.lankenau@lw.com LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.391.0600 Facsimile: 415.395.8095 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Richard P. Bress (admitted pro hac vice) rick.bress@lw.com Melissa Arbus Sherry (admitted pro hac vice) melissa.sherry@lw.com Anne W. Robinson (admitted pro hac vice) anne.robinson@lw.com Tyce R. Walters (admitted pro hac vice) tyce.walters@lw.com Genevieve P. Hoffman (admitted pro hac vice) genevieve.hoffman@lw.com Gemma Donofrio (admitted pro hac vice) gemma.donofrio@lw.com LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 202.637.2200 Facsimile: 202.637.2201 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 4 The New Parties added in the First Amended Complaint are signatories to this TRO motion but, consistent with the parties’ joint stipulation, Plaintiffs do not and will not rely on them for allegations of harm or injury or for any other purpose. 4 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 6 of 9 1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs National Urban League; League of Women Voters; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; City of San Jose, California; Rodney Ellis; Adrian Garcia; and the NAACP 2 3 4 5 Dated: September 3, 2020 By: /s/ Jon M. Greenbaum Kristen Clarke (pro hac vice forthcoming) kclarke@lawyerscommittee.org Jon M. Greenbaum (Bar No. 166733) jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org Ezra D. Rosenberg (admitted pro hac vice) erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org Dorian L. Spence (pro hac vice forthcoming) dspence@lawyerscommittee.org Maryum Jordan (pro hac vice forthcoming) mjordan@lawyerscommittee.org Ajay Saini (admitted pro hac vice) asaini@lawyerscommitee.org Pooja Chaudhuri (Bar No. 314847) pchaudhuri@lawyerscommittee.org LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202.662.8600 Facsimile: 202.783.0857 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs National Urban League; City of San Jose, California; Harris County, Texas; League of Women Voters; King County, Washington; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Rodney Ellis; Adrian Garcia; the NAACP; and Navajo Nation 17 18 19 20 Wendy R. Weiser (admitted pro hac vice) weiserw@brennan.law.nyu.edu Thomas P. Wolf (admitted pro hac vice) wolf@brennan.law.nyu.edu Kelly M. Percival (admitted pro hac vice) percivalk@brennan.law.nyu.edu BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 Telephone: 646.292.8310 Facsimile: 212.463.7308 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs National Urban League; City of San Jose, California; Harris County, Texas; League of Women Voters; King County, 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 5 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 7 of 9 1 Washington; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Rodney Ellis; Adrian Garcia; the NAACP; and Navajo Nation 2 3 Mark Rosenbaum (Bar No. 59940) mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 Telephone: 213.385.2977 Facsimile: 213.385.9089 4 5 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of San Jose 8 13 Doreen McPaul, Attorney General dmcpaul@nndoj.org Jason Searle (pro hac vice forthcoming) jasearle@nndoj.org NAVAJO NATION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 2010 Window Rock, AZ 86515 Telephone: (928) 871-6345 14 Attorneys for Navajo Nation 9 10 11 12 15 Dated: September 3, 2020 By: /s/ Danielle Goldstein Michael N. Feuer (Bar No. 111529) mike.feuer@lacity.org Kathleen Kenealy (Bar No. 212289) kathleen.kenealy@lacity.org Danielle Goldstein (Bar No. 257486) danielle.goldstein@lacity.org Michael Dundas (Bar No. 226930) mike.dundas@lacity.org CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 200 N. Main Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: 213.473.3231 Facsimile: 213.978.8312 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Los Angeles 24 25 Dated: September 3, 2020 By: /s/ Michael Mutalipassi Christopher A. Callihan (Bar No. 203010) legalwebmail@ci.salinas.ca.us Michael Mutalipassi (Bar No. 274858) michaelmu@ci.salinas.ca.us CITY OF SALINAS 200 Lincoln Avenue 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 6 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 8 of 9 1 Salinas, CA 93901 Telephone: 831.758.7256 Facsimile: 831.758.7257 2 3 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Salinas By: /s/ Rafey S. Balabanian Rafey S. Balabanian (Bar No. 315962) rbalabanian@edelson.com Lily E. Hough (Bar No. 315277) lhough@edelson.com EDELSON P.C. 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415.212.9300 Facsimile: 415.373.9435 Dated: September 3, 2020 5 6 7 8 9 Rebecca Hirsch (pro hac vice forthcoming) rebecca.hirsch2@cityofchicago.org CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO Mark A. Flessner Stephen J. Kane 121 N. LaSalle Street, Room 600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 744-8143 Facsimile: (312) 744-5185 10 11 12 13 14 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Chicago 16 17 Dated: September 3, 2020 By: /s/ Donald R. Pongrace Donald R. Pongrace (pro hac vice pending) dpongrace@akingump.com AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 Facsimile: 202-887-4288 18 19 20 21 22 Dario J. Frommer (Bar No. 161248) dfrommer@akingump.com AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022 Phone: 213.254.1270 Fax: 310.229.1001 23 24 25 26 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gila River Indian Community 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 7 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO Case 5:20-cv-05799-LHK Document 66 Filed 09/03/20 Page 9 of 9 1 Dated: September 3, 2020 By: /s/ David I. Holtzman David I. Holtzman (Bar No. 299287) David.Holtzman@hklaw.com HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Daniel P. Kappes Jacqueline N. Harvey 50 California Street, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 743-6970 Fax: (415) 743-6910 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff County of Los Angeles 8 9 ATTESTATION 10 11 12 13 I, Melissa Arbus Sherry, am the ECF user whose user ID and password authorized the filing of this document. Under Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest that all signatories to this document have concurred in this filing. 14 Dated: September 3, 2020 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 15 By: /s/ Melissa Arbus Sherry Melissa Arbus Sherry 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 8 CASE NO. 5:20-CV-05799-LHK PLTFS.’ MOT. FOR TRO