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 C Page 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 4 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Plaintiff, 5 vs. : : No. 18-264 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 6 : EDMUND GERALD BROWN, JR., : Governor of California, in his: 7 Official Capacity; AND XAVIER : BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his Official : Capacity, 8 : : 9 Defendants. : 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 11 VIDEOTAPED 12 DEPOSITION OF: THOMAS HOMAN 13 DATE: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 14 TIME: 10:12 a.m. 15 LOCATION: Department of Justice 16 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 17 Washington, D.C. 18 REPORTED BY: 19 Denise M. Brunet, RPR Reporter/Notary 20 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 COLIN A. KISOR, ESQUIRE 5 EREZ REUVENI, ESQUIRE 6 LAUREN BINGHAM, ESQUIRE 7 U.S. Department of Justice 8 Civil Division 9 450 5th Street, Northwest 10 Washington, D.C. 20530 11 (202) 532-4331 12 colin.kisor@usdoj.gov 13 14 On behalf of the Defendants: 15 CHRISTINE CHUANG, ESQUIRE 16 State of California 17 Department of Justice 18 Bureau of Children's Justice 19 1515 Clay Street 20 Suite 2100 21 Oakland, California 22 (510) 879-0094 23 christine.chuang.doj.ca.gov 94612 24 25 (Appearances continued on the next page.) 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 3 1 APPEARANCES (continued): 2 3 On behalf of the Defendants (continued): 4 LEE I. SHERMAN, ESQUIRE 5 CHEROKEE DM MELTON, ESQUIRE 6 SATOSHI YANAI, ESQUIRE 7 State of California 8 Department of Justice 9 300 S. Spring Street 10 Suite 1702 11 Los Angeles, California 12 (213) 269-6404 13 lee.sherman@doj.ca.gov 90013 14 15 ALSO PRESENT: Rene E. Browne 16 Michael P. Davis 17 Michael F. Arnold 18 Moria Skinner 19 Julie Laughlin 20 Dan Reidy, Videographer 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 4 1 C O N T E N T S 2 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE: 3 Counsel for Defendants 7 4 5 HOMAN DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: 6 Exh 1 - Notice of deposition 7 Exh 2 - Declarations of Thomas Homan 12 8 Exh 3 - Memo from John Kelly dated 2/20/17 30 9 Exh 4 - Blank immigration detainer - notice of 10 action PAGE: 9 96 11 Exh 5 - Document Bates stamped 12 USvCA_Homan_Depo000463 13 107 Exh 6 - Crimes of arrest for San Diego, CA 14 declined detainers 118 15 Exh 7 - Immigration detainer - notice of action 128 16 Exh 8 - EARM view encounter summary 132 17 18 (*Exhibits attached to the transcript.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 38 1 Q You just stated that it costs more money 2 for the government to send additional agents. 3 you have an estimate of how much more money it 4 costs? 5 A I don't know the figure offhand. Do We -- 6 we did operations recently in southern California 7 and in northern California. 8 operations this -- in the past several months in 9 California. We did three We had to send many detail agents to 10 augment existing staff to do these operations. 11 I'm certain we track those expenses. 12 off the top of my head. 13 them. 14 Q 15 16 I don't know We certainly can provide Do you attribute the increase in ICE enforcement activities in California to AB 450? A I think AB 450 is requiring us to work 17 harder and less efficient than prior to the 18 enactment of 450. 19 Q 20 that? 21 A Can you please describe why you believe Well, a couple of things. We just did an 22 I-9 operation in California, and I recently 23 learned that, for instance, one company in San 24 Francisco did not want to supply the I-9 forms per 25 the notice of inspection. 212-279-9424 It was the delay in Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 39 1 giving us the I-9 forms until the company -- the 2 company felt like they would be in violation of 3 450, so they got an attorney. 4 administrative subpoena to get the documents. 5 That caused more work. 6 We had to do an There seemed to be confusion on what the 7 employer thought between 450 versus what the 8 federal requirements are. So we spent more time 9 in working that one case. That's one I was 10 briefed on specifically. 11 Q What company are you referring to? 12 A I don't have that number offhand. 13 Q The name offhand? 14 A I don't know it offhand. 15 Q Okay. 16 17 When did this I-9 operation relating to this company occur? A Within the past eight weeks. I don't 18 know the exact dates. 19 inspection throughout the country. 20 was -- I think we've already completed the first 21 phase in California. 22 Q We have a rolling I-9 California So several weeks ago. And did the company specifically inform 23 you that they did not want to comply with the I-9 24 inspection process? 25 A 212-279-9424 The information I received from HSI Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 40 1 leadership was that the company would not -- 2 didn't think they had to comply with the notice of 3 inspections to give the I-9s within the three days 4 required. 5 violation of 450. 6 They thought they were going to be in They contacted an attorney. We actually 7 did an administrative subpoena, and we got the 8 I-9s after additional work. 9 relayed to me. That is what was 10 Q Who relayed that to you? 11 A Derek Benner, the acting executive 12 associate director for Homeland Security 13 investigations. 14 Q And who relayed that to Derek? 15 A The e-mail was -- first, Derek verbally 16 told me that he followed up with an e-mail. 17 e-mail was from Derek. 18 don't know who -- I'm sure the e-mail split up 19 between -- we have three SACs, special agents in 20 charge: 21 was -- I'm sure he got it from the SACs, but I do 22 not know for sure because I did not ask him that 23 question. 24 Q 25 The And their staff below -- I San Francisco, L.A. and San Diego. So it Do you know if Derek obtained that information directly from the company? 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 48 1 legislation as a law enforcement officer -- and 2 that certainly would have a bad effect on our 3 mission, what we're trying to do. 4 Q Can you please describe what you mean by 5 bad effect on our mission of what we're trying to 6 do? 7 A Generally, even back in my day, when 8 we -- when we had this discussion with employers, 9 we like to do it in a private setting because 10 information may come up -- certainly PII 11 information on employees; you know, they provide 12 social security numbers, personal information. 13 Employers, in my experience, would much rather 14 meet with, you know, ICE officers in private 15 settings, especially if customers are going to 16 come into the public area. 17 see -- their customers see them having a 18 discussion with law enforcement. 19 They don't want to I've been a law enforcement officer for 20 34 years. 21 this in a private setting, we usually will 22 encounter better cooperation and be able to find 23 other things out when we're in a private setting. 24 25 I can just tell you, doing things like Victims of trafficking certainly aren't going to come forward in a public setting. 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com But if 212-490-3430 Page 49 1 you're in a private setting talking to an 2 employer -- an employee that may be a victim of 3 trafficking or abuse or peonage or something were 4 more apt to tell the officer that in a private 5 setting rather than -- not in a public area. 6 So I just -- as a law enforcement 7 officer, we -- that's why generally we do things 8 like this in a private setting, to have 9 confidential conversations away from the general 10 public. 11 officer. 12 cooperate better in a private setting. 13 just my opinion as a law enforcement officer. 14 And I think not only a law enforcement Whoever we're talking to tends to MR. KISOR: That's Before you go on to your next 15 question, I think we're about at the one-hour 16 mark. 17 18 Is it all right if we take a break? MS. CHUANG: Yes. How long would you like to take a break for? 19 MR. KISOR: Five, ten minutes. 20 MS. CHUANG: 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That works. 22 record. 23 on the video is 11:12 a.m. Thank you. We're going off the This ends media unit number 1. The time We're off the record. 24 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 212-279-9424 This begins media unit Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 56 1 gather better information, better cooperation in a 2 private setting. 3 Q And you mentioned speaking to other law 4 enforcement agencies and officers. 5 speak to? 6 A Who did you Spoke to Phil Miller, spoke to Matt 7 Albence, spoke to Derek Benner. I've been doing 8 this 34 years. 9 hours -- I used to do worksite investigation as a I could spend the next four 10 special agent in Phoenix back in 1988, 1989 when 11 we -- probably '95, '96. 12 agent, I did worksite investigation. 13 served notice of inspections. 14 firsthand knowledge how that works and how the 15 interviews go and what you gather from the 16 interviews. 17 and my knowledge, I think AB 450 is going to 18 prevent us from doing much of our job. 19 When I was a special I have And so I have I just think, based on my experience And I certainly think it's going to have 20 an impact on identifying possible victims of 21 trafficking and peonage and employer abuse if we 22 can't have discussions in private. 23 Q You mentioned three individuals before 24 that you spoke to: 25 forget his last name -- and another individual. 212-279-9424 Phillip Miller, Derek -- I Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Did you implement this change of policy for ICE? A It's my understanding it's still being worked on. Q And when it's still being worked on, do you mean it's in draft form? A It's the privacy office -- last I was 8 briefed on this, the policy office is working on 9 changes of the privacy policy. 10 Q Do you have an estimated time frame for 11 the completion and approval of the new privacy 12 policy? 13 A No. 14 Q So those -- in your understanding of this 15 policy change, does it impact privacy protections 16 for lawful permanent residents? 17 A There's privacy protection for everybody 18 in our custody. But there's a -- I think there's 19 an elevated concern for those who are lawful 20 permanent residents. 21 the victims of domestic abuse, trafficking, not 22 only do they have privacy protection, they 23 actually have statutory protections. And of course, again, for 24 But again, I know what this says, but I 25 can tell you that I'm not a policy expert, but a 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Page 69 1 policy expert has reviewed this affidavit and 2 agreed with the factual contents of the affidavit, 3 that this California legislation will put us at 4 odds with privacy policy and statutes. 5 why it's in the affidavit. 6 Q And that's Under what circumstances would lawful 7 permanent residents be detained in civil detention 8 facilities? 9 A If they're removable. We detain people 10 for removable purposes. So if a lawful permanent 11 resident got convicted of certain aggravated 12 felonies, serious offenses, that would put their 13 lawful permanent resident status at risk if they 14 get convicted of something like that. 15 an LPR gets convicted of murder. 16 removable. 17 purposes. 18 Q Let's say Certainly So we would detain them for removable Do you understand this policy change 19 discussed in section G of the February 20th 20 memorandum to impact privacy protections for 21 individuals who are not U.S. citizens and not 22 lawful permanent residents? 23 A Can you repeat the question, please? 24 Q Do you understand that the policy change 25 referenced in section G of this February 20th 212-279-9424 Veritext Legal Solutions www.veritext.com 212-490-3430

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?