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)

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

[phone]

12

[e-mail]

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

[phone]

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

[phone]

13

[e-mail]

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