United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 171

REPLY by United States of America to RESPONSE to 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Reuveni, Erez)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT O IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAM-KJN Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:18-cv-00490 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND GERALD BROWN, JR., Governor of California; in his official capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity, Defendant. _____________________________________________________ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TOM WANG TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2018 1:45 P.M. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6239 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 1 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 APPEARANCES 2 3 FOR PLAINTIFF: 4 LAUREN C. BINGHAM, ESQUIRE 5 JOSEPH BARROW, ESQUIRE 6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 7 CIVIL DIVISION 8 District Court Section 9 Ben Franklin Station 10 P.O. Box 868 11 Washington, DC 20044 12 (202) 616-4458 13 lauren.bingham@usdoj.gov 14 joseph.barrow@usdoj.gov 15 16 JULIE LAUGHLIN, ESQUIRE 17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 18 IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 19 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISOR 20 500 12th Street SW 21 Washington, DC 20536 22 (202) 732-5349 23 juliealaughlin@gmail.com 24 25 Page 2 Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 1 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 APPEARANCES 2 3 FOR DEFENDANTS: 4 CHRISTINE CHUANG, ESQUIRE 5 CHEROKEE DM MELTON, ESQUIRE 6 MICHAEL L. NEWMAN, Director 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 9 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 10 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2100 11 Oakland, California 94612-1492 12 (510) 879-0094 13 (510) 622-2121 Fax 14 Christine.Chuang@doj.ca.gov 15 cherokee.melton@doj.ca.gov 16 michael.newman@doj.ca.gov 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 1 Q There were no other documents? 2 A No other documents. 3 Q Okay. Page 23 Is the dataset that you refer to in 4 paragraph 9 one of the documents you brought with you 5 today? 6 A Yes, it's on that CD rom. 7 Q Thank you. 8 A Do they call it CD roms any more? 10 Q How recently is the data in that dataset? 11 A I believe the ILRC obtained the data December It's on the 9 CD. 12 2016. 13 Q Have you ever taken any steps to verify this A No. 14 data? 15 I got it from the ILRC. 16 this was the raw data. They said yes. I asked them if I don't have any 17 reason to believe that it's not the data that they 18 obtained from the FOIA request. It's also ICE's data, 19 so ICE can verify it, I believe, if they would like to. 20 Q Have you ever verified whether or not there's 21 any updates to this data? 22 A I was going to and that's how I came across 23 ILRC's updated FOIA request, so I'm just kind of waiting 24 for them to get that update, and if they get that 25 update, then hopefully I can get my hands on that data Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 Page 24 1 as well. 2 Q And what were you going to do -- when you say 3 you were going to verify it, what steps were you going 4 to take to verify it? 5 A Well, so I want updated data so I can update 6 the analysis so I can know if we see -- from sort of a 7 research perspective, we're interested in sort of 8 whether or not things hold over time, so that is my 9 interest in getting the updated data. 10 Q When you say things hold over time, what do 11 you mean? 12 A So the findings that we see in the initial 13 analysis. 14 Q Have you ever verified -- for example, in your 15 dataset you say some of these counties are sanctuary 16 because they don't cooperate and some of these are not 17 because they do essentially. 18 A Okay. I see what you're -- 19 Q Have you ever called the county to verify that 20 they are, in fact, still cooperating or not cooperating? 21 A No. At the time that I did the analysis, it 22 was about a month after they received the FOIA data. I 23 kind of took ICE at its words. 24 Q Okay. 25 A So because -- yeah, you know, ICE is doing the Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 Page 25 1 categorization of the places and so in getting this 2 dataset, it's like a, sort of, treasure trove for an 3 academic, especially on a topic where there are no clear 4 definitions because ICE did the defining. I got the 5 data December 2016, December 2016, I was able to analyze 6 that data right away. So in that gap there, I don't 7 believe -- you know, there would have been a lot of 8 movement and -- because ICE was doing the 9 categorization, I took ICE for its word. 10 Q Okay. So are you aware of whether there have 11 been any changes to any of these jurisdictions since the 12 time that your -- since the time you obtained this data? 13 A I saw a news report of Texas counties joining 14 287-G, and I think that was in 2017, which is what 15 initially got me thinking about updating this dataset 16 here, but, then again, ILRC beat me to the punch. 17 Q Do you happen to know why ICE collected the 18 data that is in this dataset? 19 A 20 Yeah. MS. CHUANG: Objection. Calls for 21 speculation. 22 BY MS. BINGHAM: 23 Q Again, just to be clear, I'm not asking you to 24 speculate, I'm asking just whether or not you know if 25 this was -- if that information was provided to you in Thomas Wong 1 Q May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 Page 27 "Of California's 58 counties, 53 are 2 characterized by ICE as either not willing to accept 3 notifications or detainer requests." 4 So does that sentence characterize your 5 understanding of the column in the spreadsheet that we 6 previously discussed? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And what was that column called in the 9 spreadsheet? 10 A Current Detainer or Notification Acceptance 11 Status, I believe. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Yeah. 14 Q So moving on to the next sentence, it said, 15 "Of these 53, one is characterized as not willing to 16 accept notification and detainer requests; six are 17 characterized as not willing to accept detainer requests 18 but not notification requests." 19 So I want to ask you about that part 20 specifically that begins on line 14: "Six are 21 characterized as not willing to accept detainer requests 22 but not notification requests." 23 Does that mean that they are not willing to 24 accept detainers but they are willing to accept 25 notification requests? Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 1 A Let me see. 2 Q Of course. 3 A I'm going to reread this. 4 Q Take a minute to reread it. 5 A Page 28 Excuse me. I think there's -- I think there's an error 6 here because "not willing to accept detainer requests 7 but not notification requests," I think this should be 8 - and this is why I needed a second. "Six are 9 characterized as" -- this should be "willing to accept 10 detainer requests but not notification requests." 11 Q Okay. So six are characterized as willing to 12 accept detainer requests, but not notificationrequests" 13 -14 A Yes. 15 Q -- is how it should read? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. So the next line says, "11 are 18 characterized as willing to accept notification" -19 A Yeah, so the opposite, yeah. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Yeah, sorry. 22 Q Thank you for explaining that. 23 That was my confusion. No, thank you for catching that. So that means that essentially 17 counties of 24 the 53 counties are cooperating in one respect but not 25 the other? Thomas Wong 1 A May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 It's a little unclear. Page 29 There is -- when you 2 think about the different combinations of detainer and 3 notification, there are four different combinations, so 4 both, both, yes, yes, right? No, no, and then yes, no 5 on one or two -- the first dimension, not the second 6 dimension, and then no, yes for first dimension, second 7 dimension. 8 But there's actually five different 9 categories, and five is currently not willing but -- and 10 then in parentheses considering, so that column there is 11 the bulk of California counties. 12 Q I understand that, but asking specifically 13 about the six counties that are willing to accept 14 detainers but not notifications, and the 11 counties 15 that are characterized as willing to accept 16 notifications but not detainers, those would fall into 17 those two squares where they're cooperating on either/ 18 or, right? 19 A That we know of. If the 35 -- because the 35 20 -- the wording in the -- in -- in the fifth category 21 that ICE has in that column is considering but currently 22 not willing to accept notifications and/or detainers, 16 23 and 17, so because there's that and/or, I -- I don't 24 know what it is. 25 Q So -- Thomas Wong 1 A May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 Page 30 So it could fall as part of the 17 is what I'm 2 saying. 3 Q Okay. I might need to ask you another 4 question about that to make sure that I'm clear. 5 A Okay. 6 Q I understand what you're saying, but 7 essentially the 53 is broken down here into three 8 categories: Six that are willing to accept detainers 9 but not notification, 11 that are willing to accept 10 notification requests but not detainers, and 35 that are 11 considering one or the other. 12 So just to make sure I understand your last 13 statement, you're saying that of the 35, potentially 14 other -- potentially members of that class of 35 could 15 be following -- excuse me, could fall into the class of 16 six or -17 A Or -- 18 Q -- in the class of 11? 19 A Exactly. 20 Q So hypothetically there could be more than six Exactly. 21 and there could be more than 11? 22 A More than 11, yes. 23 Q So it would be accurate to say that at least 24 17 are cooperating in one way or another? 25 A At least 17, yes. I think you can actually Thomas Wong May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 Page 31 1 say at least 22. 2 Q Oh. 3 A Because there are five that are currently both 4 detainer and notifications. 5 Q But at least 17 of the 53? 6 A Of these 53, yeah. 7 Q Okay. 8 Thank you for explaining that. I want to make sure I go through my questions 9 here. 10 I think I know the answer to this, but I want 11 to make sure. In the considering column, which is 35 as 12 we were just talking about -13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q -- you have not done any follow-up research to 15 verify whether or not they made a decision that -- you 16 know, at the time they were considering? 17 A No. At the time of the analysis, because it 18 was so close to ICE providing the data, I took ICE at 19 its word that these localities at that point were 20 considering, but at that point also not willing. 21 Q I want to tie this back to your analysis -- 22 A Okay. 23 Q -- where here you say that you took ICE at its 24 word as to whether someone was cooperating or not. 25 A Uh-huh. 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 I, Mary Anne Young, do hereby certify that 4 I reported all proceedings adduced in the foregoing matter 5 and that the foregoing transcript pages constitutes a 6 full, true and accurate record of said proceedings to the 7 best of my ability. 8 9 I further certify that I am neither related 10 to counsel or any party to the proceedings nor have any 11 interest in the outcome of the proceedings. 12 13 14 IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of June, 2018. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mary Anne Young Tom Wong PHD 1 May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 CORRECTION SHEET 2 Deposition of: Tom Wong Date: 05/30/18 3 Regarding: United States vs. State of California 4 Reporter: Young 5 ____________________________________________________ 6 Please make all corrections, changes or clarifications 7 to your testimony on this sheet, showing page and line 8 number. If there are no changes, write "none" across 9 the page. Sign this sheet on the line provided. 10 Page Line Reason for Change 11 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 12 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 13 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 14 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 15 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 16 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 17 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 18 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 19 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 20 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 21 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 22 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 23 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 24 25 Signature____ _____________________ Tom Wong Page 181 Tom Wong PHD 1 May 30, 2018 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 CORRECTION SHEET 2 Deposition of: Tom Wong Date: 05/30/18 3 Regarding: United States vs. State of California 4 Reporter: Young 5 ____________________________________________________ 6 Please make all corrections, changes or clarifications 7 to your testimony on this sheet, showing page and line 8 number. If there are no changes, write "none" across 9 the page. Sign this sheet on the line provided. 10 Page Line Reason for Change 11 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 12 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 13 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 14 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 15 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 16 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 17 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 18 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 19 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 20 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 21 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 22 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 23 _____ _____ ________________________________________ 24 25 Signature_____ ____________________ Tom Wong Page 181 Tom Wong PHD May 30, 2018 1 NDT Assgn # 26691-1 DECLARATION 2 Deposition of: Tom Wong Date: 05/30/18 3 Regarding: United States vs. State of California 4 Reporter: Young 5 ____________________________________________________ 6 7 I declare under penalty of perjury the following to 8 be true: 9 10 I have read my deposition and the same is true and 11 accurate save and except for any corrections as made 12 by me on the Correction Page herein. 13 14 Signed at ____________________________, ____________ 15 on the ______________ day of ________________, 2018. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Signature___________________________ Tom Wong Page 182

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.


Why Is My Information Online?