National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al
| National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law and Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus |
| United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy and Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel |
| 1:2016cv00387 |
| January 19, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Katherine B. Forrest |
| Freedom of Information Act |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
196
OPINION & ORDER: On September 14, 2020, the Court issued a lengthy decision resolving, for the most part, the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' FOIA request. Dkt. 184 ("Decision"). The Court granted partial summary judgment to each side. The Court, however, reserved judgment on a subset of records, as to which it directed defendants to make further filings and submit records for in camera review. The Court has now carefully reviewed the records and affidavits at issue. These fall into four categories: (1) records as to which in camera review was necessary to determine whether the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5 was properly invoked; (2) records as to which Exemption 5 applied, but in camera review and submission of an affidavit were necessary to enable the Court separately to determine whether withholding is consistent with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016; (3) records as to which Exemption 5 applied, but submiss ion of an affidavit, though not in camera review, was necessary to determine whether withholding is consistent with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016; and (4) records as to which an affidavit was necessary addressing redlines or other markups associat ed with the documents withheld. The Court's orders as to the responsive records in each of these four categories follows. The Court here incorporates by reference the discussion in its September 14, 2020 decision as to these documents, setting o ut here only the additional analysis necessary to explain its outcome, and as further set forth in this opinion. These rulings resolve all outstanding questions regarding plaintiffs' FOIA request. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/11/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER: As plaintiffs agree that the parties' dispute as to these records is now moot, the Court hereby relieves the defendants of the directives in its decision related to these records. See Dkt. 187. Defendants also request that the Court modif y its order directing ICE to release the records identified as ICE Doc. Nos. 41-42, 50-52, and 83, and instead permit ICE to provide these six records to the Court for in camera review. Id. Defendants explain that because the Court has separately dir ected that records relating to the same or similar subject matterthe monitoring of the Priority Enforcement Program for civil rights issues by CRCLbe submitted for in camera review as part of DHS's production, the Court should consider these rec ords alongside the related DHS records. Id. Plaintiffs state that they "do not object to the Court reviewing, in camera, ICE Doc. Nos. 41-42, 50-52, and 83 to determine whether these documents (a) are the same or substantially similar to DHS Doc . Nos. 12, 13, and 25 and should be treated the same as DHS Doc. Nos. 12, 13, and 25; or (b) relate to the implementation of PEP and should be released per the Court's Opinion." Id. The Court therefore orders that Defendants submit these six records, ICE Doc. Nos. 41-42, 50-52, and 83, for in camera review. The Court gives defendants until Wednesday, November 18, 2020 to do so. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/13/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
184
OPINION & ORDER re: 173 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment, 164 MOTION for Summary Judgment: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs and directs Defendants to produce, in full, the following docum ents to Plaintiffs within 30 days: DHS Record Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 31, 33, 48, 80, 81, 95, 101, 102, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 121; ICE Record Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 24, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants partial summary judgment to Defendants and upholds the withholding of the following documents: DHS Record Nos. 9, 18, 20, 26 , 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 112; ICE Record Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 38, 39, 43, 45, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 69, 73, 81, 84, 89. The Court reserves on the remaining documents and directs Defendants to take the following action within 30 days: 1) Defendants are directed to submit two copies of each of the following records-one unredacted and the other showing the proposed redactions-to the Court under seal for in camera review: a. DHS Record Nos.: 40, 41, 46, 92, 104, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124; b. ICE Record Nos.: 17, 29, 30, 46. 2) Defendants are directed to submit two copies of each of the following records-one unredacted and the other showing the proposed redactions-to the Court under seal for in camera review, along with an affidav it or revised Vaughn index identifying the specific harm that would come from the production of the following records: DHS Record Nos.: 12, 13, 25, 125. 3) Defendants are directed to submit an affidavit explaining the specific harm that would come fr om the production of the draft forms: CBP Record Nos. 1, 4; DHS Record Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 34, 44, 94; ICE Record Nos. 34, 78, 79, 85, 86. 4) Defendants are directed to submit a sworn affidavit stating whether any of the following records contai n deliberative redlines or other markup on the face of the record: DHS Record Nos. 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 98 100; CBP Record No. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 164 and 173. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 9/14/2020) (jwh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
