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 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL NEWMAN SATOSHI YANAI ANTHONY HAKL Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHRISTINE CHUANG CHEROKEE DM MELTON MAUREEN C. ONYEAGBAKO LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 272271 300 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6404 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: Lee.Sherman@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 14 15 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 17 18 Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 19 20 21 22 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, Hearing Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: Trial Date: Action Filed: June 20, 2018 10:00 a.m. 6 Honorable John A. Mendez None Set March 6, 2018 Defendants. 23 24 25 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., XAVIER BECERRA SET NUMBER: ONE 27 28 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Under Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Eastern District of 2 California Civil Local Rule 250.2, and the Court Order dated May 24, 2018, ECF No. 158 3 (May 24 Court Order), Defendants State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor of 4 California in his official capacity, and Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California in his 5 official capacity (collectively, “California”), by and through their attorneys of record, hereby 6 responds and objects to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. 7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS AND 8 DEFINITIONS 9 1. Defendants State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Xavier Becerra 10 (collectively, “California”) object to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories 11 (“Interrogatories”), sent to California following the May 24 Court Order, to the extent that the 12 Interrogatories are different from the interrogatories that the Court considered when issuing the 13 Court Order. 14 2. California’s objections and responses to the Interrogatories are made on the basis of 15 facts and circumstances as they presently are known to California. California’s attorneys of 16 record have not yet completed their investigation, discovery, or analysis of the matters raised by 17 this action. Accordingly, all of the following responses are provided without prejudice to 18 California’s right to introduce at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction or at trial 19 any evidence that is subsequently discovered relating to proof of presently known facts, and to 20 produce and introduce all evidence, whenever discovered, relating to proof of subsequently 21 discovered facts. The responses are all based upon information and documents that have been 22 found after reasonable search and diligent inquiry. California reserves the right to amend or 23 supplement these responses. 24 3. California’s objections and responses are based on its understanding and 25 interpretation of the Interrogatories. If Plaintiff understands or interprets the Interrogatories 26 differently, California reserves the right to supplement any of its objections or responses. 27 28 4. California objects that these Interrogatories purportedly are propounded under Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which governs the production of documents, and not 1 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 interrogatories. The May 24 Court Order did not require California to produce any documents in 2 connection with these Interrogatories. California will respond to these Interrogatories consistent 3 with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 5. California objects to Instruction No. 2 on the grounds that the request for 5 “information” that “was created” or “has been used or has been in effect” between January 1, 6 2018 and the present is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and is not proportional to the 7 needs of the case or the issue of Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in its 8 motion for a preliminary injunction. California further objects to the extent that the “information” 9 that “was created” or “has been used or has been in effect,” which the United States seeks in 10 response to each Interrogatory, is information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the 11 attorney work-product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, or any other applicable 12 privilege. California also objects to Instruction No. 2 on the grounds that it seeks “information” 13 from before the effective date of Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), which was January 4, 2018. Subject to 14 and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California will limit its response to its 15 interpretation of California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C), which has been in effect 16 since January 4, 2018. 17 6. California objects to the definition of the term “Document” on the grounds that it is 18 overbroad and unduly burdensome. California further objects that it seeks documents that are not 19 relevant to the subject matter of the case. In addition, it seeks documents that are not proportional 20 to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in its motion for 21 preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited discovery period. To the extent that the 22 definition of the term “Document” is broader than provided in the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure, California will incorporate the term “Document” in accordance with the Federal Rules 24 of Civil Procedure. California further objects to the definition of the term “Document” as 25 inconsistent with the May 24 Court Order, which did not require California to produce any 26 documents. To the extent the definition incorporates the overbroad and unduly burdensome 27 definition of “California Law Enforcement Agency,” California’s below objections to that 28 definition are incorporated here as well. Moreover, California does not have possession, custody, 2 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 or control of documents as those terms are used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all 2 California law enforcement agencies due only to the supervision and authority provisions set out 3 in the California Constitution article V, section 13 and California Penal Code section 13020. 4 Those provisions are unconnected to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 5 its purposes, and they do not take into account any of the requirements of those rules, including 6 that all discovery be relevant, not unduly burdensome or overbroad, and proportional. 7 7. California objects to the definition of the term “Communication” as vague, 8 ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant. In addition, the definition is not 9 proportional to the needs of the case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in 10 its motion for preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited discovery period. Further, it is 11 beyond the scope of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules 12 of this Court. 13 8. California objects to the definition of “California” or “State” on the grounds that it is 14 overbroad and unduly burdensome, includes matters not relevant to any party’s claim or defense. 15 In addition, it is not proportional to the needs of the case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting 16 irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited discovery 17 period. California further objects to the definition of “California” or “State” as encompassing 18 state entities that are not parties to this litigation. See People ex. rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court, 19 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1078 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that by bringing an action on behalf 20 of the People, the People are not deemed to have possession, custody, or control of documents or 21 information from any state agency). 22 9. California objects to the definition of “California Law Enforcement Agency” to the 23 extent that Plaintiff requests California to produce information and documents that are not in its 24 possession, custody, or control. California also objects to the extent that the definition includes 25 matters not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the case, 26 Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary injunction, 27 or the abbreviated expedited discovery period. This definition purports to encompass hundreds of 28 California law enforcement agencies that exist in the State, irrespective of whether they are state 3 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 or local law enforcement. Information and documents pertaining to every California law 2 enforcement agency are not in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. Requesting 3 information from every state and local law enforcement agency in the entire state is not 4 proportional to the needs of the case or Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm 5 in its motion for preliminary injunction. Nor does it include matters relevant to any claims, and it 6 is extraordinarily overbroad and unduly burdensome. 7 10. California objects to the definition of “Detainer Request” on the grounds that it is 8 overbroad and unduly burdensome. It also includes matters not relevant to any party’s claim or 9 defense or Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary 10 injunction. And it is not proportional to the needs of the case and the abbreviated expedited 11 discovery period. The definition is unduly burdensome and overbroad in that it implies a vague 12 and ambiguous time period, which is also irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation. 13 SB 54 was not effective until January 4, 2018, and therefore, the relevant and proportional time 14 period does not encompass the time period before the effective date of SB 54, and cannot 15 encompass the predecessor Department of Homeland Security (DHS) forms, including DHS 16 Form 1-247D, DHS Form I-247N, and DHS Form I-247X, which were used before the current 17 DHS Form I-247A. Moreover, Plaintiff has not challenged the provision in SB 54 that prohibits 18 detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request (“detainer request”), which California 19 understands are or were requested in DHS Forms I-247A or I-247D, and thus is not at issue in this 20 litigation. Further, Plaintiff’s Interrogatories concern California Government Code section 21 7284.6(a)(1)(C), which does not involve a request to transfer a person to immigration authorities 22 (“transfer request”). California understands transfer requests are or were made in DHS Forms I- 23 247A or I-247X, and are not relevant for purposes of responding to these Interrogatories. Subject 24 to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California will limit its response to its 25 interpretation of “Detainer Request” to encompass the request made on DHS Form I-247A to 26 “[n]otify DHS as early as practicable (at least 48 hours if possible)” before a person is released 27 from custody, and the request to law enforcement agencies to provide information at the bottom 28 of said form. 4 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 11. These objections to the definitions are applicable to each and every one of the 2 following answers and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to a specific 3 Interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of the objection. Repetition of one or more of these 4 objections in response to a specific Interrogatory shall not be a waiver of other applicable 5 objections. 6 7 8 9 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State whether, in Defendants’ view, California Law Enforcement Agency may establish a policy of sharing an individual’s release date, as soon as it becomes available, with federal 10 immigration authorities, consistent with Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government 11 Code and Parts III.1.C and III.2.B.i of Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01. If your answer would 12 vary depending on the circumstances, please explain. 13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 14 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 15 terms and phrases “policy” and “as soon as it becomes available,” are vague, ambiguous, or 16 otherwise undefined, and require California to speculate about the intended meaning of those 17 terms and phrases. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports to 18 place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including but 19 not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the May 24 20 Court Order. Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the 21 scope of the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required 22 to respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 23 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 24 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 25 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 26 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 27 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 28 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 5 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks additional information regarding 2 Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its 3 contents. 4 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California responds that 5 California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) states that: “California law enforcement 6 agencies shall not: [u]se agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, 7 detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including . . . [p]roviding 8 information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by 9 providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or 10 is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 11 7282.5” (emphasis added). California Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement 12 Information Bulletin No. DLE-2018-01 (Law Enforcement Bulletin), issued March 28, 2018, 13 states: “the phrase ‘available to the public’ refers to information where a law enforcement agency 14 has a practice of making such information public, such as disclosing the information on its 15 website or if it has a practice or policy of providing the information to individuals in response to 16 specific requests. Law enforcement agencies should, in addition to ensuring compliance with the 17 Values Act, take care to ensure that they comply with applicable state or federal privacy laws.” 18 California also responds that the California Public Records Act, California Government Code 19 section 6254(f)(1) generally authorizes the public disclosure of “the time and manner of release” 20 so long as the disclosure would not “endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation 21 or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.” 22 Further responding, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) 23 and the Information Bulletin, if a California Law Enforcement Agency has a practice of 24 disclosing release dates to the public as soon as release dates become available, and the law 25 enforcement agency is satisfied that the public disclosure of the information would not “endanger 26 the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion 27 of the investigation or a related investigation,” then the law enforcement agency’s disclosure of 28 release dates to immigration authorities would not violate SB 54. For example, if the California 6 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Law Enforcement Agency has a practice of posting release dates on a website as soon as they 2 become available, that law enforcement agency may then share a person’s release dates with 3 immigration authorities after posting the release date on a website without violating SB 54. 4 However, a California Law Enforcement Agency may not disclose release dates to immigration 5 authorities as soon as that information becomes available if the information is not available to the 6 public or the circumstances described in California Government Code section 7282.5 do not 7 apply. 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 9 State whether, in Defendants’ view, the phrase “or other information,” as used in Section 10 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government Code, includes information other than “release 11 dates,” such as information concerning an individual’s identity or home address information 12 requested at the bottom of a Detainer Request in the section titled “To Be Completed by the Law 13 Enforcement Agency,” or specific information regarding where and how that individual will be 14 exiting a California Law Enforcement’s premises, including specific points of egress and whether 15 the point of egress if open to the public or a secure location. If your answer would vary 16 depending on the circumstances, please explain. 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 18 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 19 terms and phrases “specific information regarding where and how that individual will be exiting a 20 California Law Enforcement’s premises,” “point[s] of egress,” “open to the public,” and “secure 21 location” are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise undefined, and require California to speculate about 22 the intended meaning of those terms and phrases. California further objects to the Interrogatory 23 to the extent it seeks or purports to place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by 24 applicable laws and rules, including but not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 25 Local Rules of this Court, and the May 24 Court Order. California also objects to the 26 Interrogatory to the extent it seeks, during this expedited period, information concerning matters 27 unrelated to (i) Plaintiff’s assertions of irreparable harm made in its Motion for Preliminary 28 Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support filed on March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 2-1), and (ii) 7 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 arguments that Defendants made to rebut Plaintiff’s claims of irreparable harm in Defendants’ 2 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 74) where California did 3 not use the term “other information.” In that manner, the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 4 burdensome. And it is not proportional to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for 5 asserting irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited 6 discovery period. 7 Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the scope of 8 the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required to 9 respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 10 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 11 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 12 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 13 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 14 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 15 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 16 California further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is not consistent with 17 the May 24 Court Order. The Court Order expressly provided “at this juncture” that “California 18 need not provide a further definition of ‘or other information,’” as used in California Government 19 Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C), beyond as outlined in the Court Order and limited at the May 24 20 conference with the Court. Therefore, California will limit its response to address the information 21 identified in the May 24 Court Order, but will not respond to whether “information concerning an 22 individual’s identity,” as that term is defined in the Interrogatories and “home address 23 information” is “other information” as used in California Government Code section 24 7284.6(a)(1)(C). California also objects to Plaintiff’s characterization that “information 25 concerning an individual’s identity,” as that term is defined in the Interrogatories and “home 26 address information” is “information requested at the bottom of a Detainer Request in the section 27 titled ‘To Be Completed by the Law Enforcement Agency.’” A person’s home address, home 28 telephone number, present or last known employer, and date or place of birth are not requested on 8 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 the DHS Form I-247A. See https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I- 2 247A.pdf. 3 California further objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that Plaintiff modified this 4 Interrogatory after the Court issued the May 24 Order, so Plaintiff is seeking to require California 5 to respond to an Interrogatory that did not form the basis of the Court’s Order. California will 6 limit its response to address the information identified in the May 24 Court Order. California 7 further objects to Plaintiff’s attempt to dictate the language of California’s response to the 8 Interrogatory. California will furnish an appropriate and relevant answer subject to these 9 objections that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California responds that 11 “other information” as that term is used in California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) 12 includes the information requested on the DHS Form I-247A, consisting of the “Local 13 Booking/Inmate #,” “Estimated release date/time,” “Date of latest criminal charge/conviction,” 14 and “Last offense charged/conviction.” Further responding, “other information” as that term is 15 used in California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) includes “the specific location of 16 release at the jail or facility (such as the front door, back door, holding area, etc.), including 17 whether the location is inside or outside the jail/facility and whether the location is open to the 18 public.” See May 24 Court Order at 2. 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 20 State whether, in Defendants’ view, Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government 21 Code, as further defined by Parts III.1.C and III.2.B.i of Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, 22 would permit an a [sic] California Law Enforcement Agency to establish a practice or policy of 23 providing information concerning “release dates” or “other information” as described in response 24 to Interrogatory 2 to federal immigration authorities in response to specific requests for such 25 information from individuals. 26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 27 28 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the terms and phrases “an a [sic] California Law Enforcement Agency,” “practice or policy,” and 9 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 “concerning ‘release dates’ or ‘other information’” are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise 2 undefined, and require California to speculate about the intended meaning of those terms and 3 phrases. California further objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports to place a 4 burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including but not 5 limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the May 24 6 Court Order. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks, during this 7 expedited period, information concerning matters unrelated to (i) Plaintiff’s assertions of 8 irreparable harm made in its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in 9 Support filed on March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 2-1), and (ii) arguments that Defendants made to rebut 10 Plaintiff’s claims of irreparable harm in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 11 Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 74), where California did not use the term “other information.” 12 In that manner, the Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. And it is not proportional 13 to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for asserting irreparable harm in its motion for 14 preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited discovery period. 15 Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the scope of 16 the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required to 17 respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 18 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 19 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 20 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 21 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 22 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 23 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 24 California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks additional information regarding 25 Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its 26 contents. California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks duplicative 27 information sought in Interrogatory No. 1, and thus, California incorporates its response and 28 objections to that Interrogatory here. 10 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 California further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it incorporates 2 information sought in Interrogatory No. 2, which as discussed above, is an Interrogatory that is 3 inconsistent with the May 24 Court Order. The Court Order expressly provided “at this juncture” 4 that “California need not provide a further definition of ‘or other information,’” as used in 5 California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C), beyond as outlined in the Court Order and 6 limited at the May 24 conference with the Court. Therefore, California will limit its response to 7 address only the information identified in the May 24 Court Order, but will not respond to this 8 Interrogatory to the extent it seeks whether “information concerning an individual’s identity,” as 9 that term is defined in the Interrogatories, and “home address information” is “other information” 10 as used in California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C). Moreover, to the extent that this 11 Interrogatory incorporates Interrogatory No. 2, California objects to Plaintiff’s characterization 12 that “information concerning an individual’s identity,” as that term is defined in the 13 Interrogatories and “home address information” is “Information requested at the bottom of a 14 Detainer Request in the section titled “To Be Completed by the Law Enforcement Agency.” A 15 person’s home address, home telephone number, present or last known employer, and date or 16 place of birth are not requested on the DHS Form I-247A. See 17 https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I-247A.pdf. California also 18 objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it incorporates Interrogatory No. 2, and Plaintiff 19 modified that Interrogatory after the Court issued the May 24 Order, so Plaintiff is seeking to 20 require California to respond to an Interrogatory that did not form the basis of the Court’s Order. 21 California will limit its response to address the information identified in the May 24 Court Order. 22 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California responds that 23 California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) states that: “California law enforcement 24 agencies shall not [u]se agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, 25 detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including . . . [p]roviding 26 information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by 27 providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or 28 is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 11 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 7282.5” (emphasis added). California Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement 2 Information Bulletin No. DLE-2018-01 (Law Enforcement Bulletin), issued March 28, 2018, 3 states: “the phrase ‘available to the public’ refers to information where a law enforcement agency 4 has a practice of making such information public, such as disclosing the information on its 5 website or if it has a practice or policy of providing the information to individuals in response to 6 specific requests. Law enforcement agencies should, in addition to ensuring compliance with the 7 Values Act, take care to ensure that they comply with applicable state or federal privacy laws.” 8 California also responds that the California Public Records Act, California Government Code 9 section 6254(f)(1) generally authorizes the public disclosure of “the time and date of arrest,” “the 10 time and date of booking,” “the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest,” “the time and 11 manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held,” and “all charges 12 the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and 13 parole or probation holds,” so long as the public disclosure would not “endanger the safety of a 14 person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the 15 investigation or a related investigation.” 16 Further responding, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) 17 and the Information Bulletin, if a California Law Enforcement Agency has a practice of 18 disclosing release dates or “other information,” as limited in California’s response to 19 Interrogatory No. 2, in response to specific requests from members of the public, and the law 20 enforcement agency is satisfied that the public disclosure of the information would not “endanger 21 the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion 22 of the investigation or a related investigation,” then the law enforcement agency may similarly 23 disclose release dates or “other information,” in compliance with SB 54, as limited in California’s 24 response to Interrogatory No. 2, to federal immigration authorities. Moreover, California Law 25 Enforcement Agencies are permitted to provide criminal history information to federal 26 immigration authorities regardless of whether the information is available to the public, California 27 Government Code section 7284.6(b)(2), so a California Law Enforcement Agency is not 28 restricted, in any way, from providing to federal immigration authorities the “Date of latest 12 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 criminal charge/conviction” and “Last offense charged/conviction” information requested on a 2 DHS Form I-247A. However, a California Law Enforcement Agency may not disclose release 3 dates or “other information” to immigration authorities in response to specific requests from 4 federal immigration authorities, if the information is not available to the public, the California 5 Law Enforcement Agency does not have a policy or practice of providing such information in 6 response to specific requests made by members of the public, the information is not criminal 7 history information, or the circumstances described in California Government Code 8 section 7282.5 do not apply. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 10 State whether, in Defendants’ view, providing federal immigration authorities information 11 in response to a Notification Request contained in a Detainer Request constitutes “providing the 12 information to individuals in response to specific requests,” as that phrase is used in Information 13 Bulletin 2018-DLE-01. 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 15 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it 16 seeks or purports to place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and 17 rules, including but not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this 18 Court, and the May 24 Court Order. Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s 19 contention regarding the scope of the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and 20 California is not required to respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects 21 on that basis. See AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, 22 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract 23 legal issues not dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal 24 punctuation omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 25 2016 WL 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory 26 response where “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] 27 case”). California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks California to provide 28 additional information regarding Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and 13 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 is the best evidence of its contents. California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds 2 that it seeks duplicative information sought in Interrogatory No. 3, and thus, California 3 incorporates its response and objections to that Interrogatory here. 4 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing, California responds that consistent with 5 California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and the Information Bulletin, if a California 6 Law Enforcement Agency has a practice of disclosing information requested in the current DHS 7 Form I-247A, in response to specific requests by members of the public, as described in response 8 to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3, then SB 54 would not bar the law enforcement agency from 9 similarly disclosing that same information to federal immigration authorities in response to the 10 currently existing DHS Form I-247A (i.e., Notification Request). However, a California Law 11 Enforcement Agency may not respond to requests for information on the DHS Form I-247A if the 12 information is not available to the public, the California Law Enforcement Agency does not have 13 a policy or practice of providing such information in response to specific requests made by 14 members of the public, the information is not criminal history information, or the circumstances 15 described in California Government Code section 7282.5 do not apply. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 17 State whether, in Defendants’ view, California Law Enforcement Agency that did not 18 previously, prior to January 1, 2018 have a practice or policy of disclosing information 19 concerning an individual’s release date or other information concerning such individuals on its 20 website or providing the information to individuals in response to specific requests, could 21 implement such a practice or policy after January 1, 2018. 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 23 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 24 terms and phrases “practice or policy,” “concerning an individual’s release date or other 25 information concerning such individuals,” and “implement” are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise 26 undefined, and require California to speculate about the intended meaning of those terms and 27 phrases. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports to place a 28 burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including but not 14 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the May 24 2 Court Order. Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the 3 scope of the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required 4 to respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 5 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 6 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 7 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 8 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 9 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 10 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 11 California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it implies that the effective date of 12 California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) is January 1, 2018. California will limit its 13 response to whether a California Law Enforcement Agency changed its policy or practice after 14 January 4, 2018, which was the effective date of California Government Code section 15 7284.6(a)(1)(c). California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 16 duplicative information sought in Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, and thus, California incorporates its 17 response and objections to those Interrogatories here. 18 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, California responds that 19 consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and the Information 20 Bulletin, a California Law Enforcement Agency that did not have a practice or policy of 21 disclosing release dates or other information to the public may implement a policy or practice 22 after January 4, 2018 of disclosing release date information or “other information,” as limited in 23 California’s response to Interrogatory No. 2, to the public on its website or in response to specific 24 requests by members of the public. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 26 State whether, in Defendants’ view, Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government 27 Code, as further defined by Parts III.1.C and III.2.B.i of Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, 28 would permit an a California Law Enforcement Agency to establish a practice or policy of 15 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 notifying federal immigration authorities that an individual subject to a Notification Request 2 contained in a Detainer Request is scheduled for release, and to inform federal immigration 3 authorities of the specific time and location an individual will exit a California Law Enforcement 4 Agency’s premises. 5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 6 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 7 terms and phrases “an a California Law Enforcement Agency,” “practice or policy,” “scheduled 8 for release” and “California Law Enforcement Agency’s premises” are vague, ambiguous, or 9 otherwise undefined, and require California to speculate about the intended meaning of those 10 terms and phrases. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports to 11 place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including but 12 not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the May 24 13 Court Order. Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the 14 scope of the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required 15 to respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 16 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 17 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 18 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 19 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 20 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 21 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 22 California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks California to provide additional 23 information regarding Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and is the best 24 evidence of its contents. California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 25 duplicative information sought in Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and thus, California incorporates 26 its response and objections to those Interrogatories here. 27 28 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and the Information Bulletin, if a California Law 16 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Enforcement Agency has a practice of disclosing specific release dates, time, and location to the 2 public in response to specific requests, then the law enforcement agency may similarly disclose 3 such information to federal immigration authorities, whether in response to a DHS Form I-247A 4 (i.e. Notification Request) or other specific requests. For example, if the California Law 5 Enforcement Agency has a practice of posting release dates, times, and location, SB 54 does not 6 preclude that California Law Enforcement Agency from then sharing a person’s release date, 7 time, and location with federal immigration authorities after posting such information on a 8 website. However, a California Law Enforcement Agency may not disclose release dates, times, 9 and location to immigration authorities if the information is not available to the public or the 10 circumstances described in California Government Code section 7282.5 do not apply. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 12 State whether, in Defendants’ view, Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government 13 Code, as further defined by Parts III.1.C and III.2.B.i of Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, 14 would permit a California Law Enforcement Agency to establish a practice or policy of notifying 15 federal immigration authorities that an individual subject to a Notification Request contained in a 16 Detainer Request is scheduled for release, and to permit federal immigration authorities to take 17 custody of the individual anywhere on the California Law Enforcement Agency’s premises. 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 19 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 20 terms and phrases “practice or policy” and “scheduled for release” are vague, ambiguous, or 21 otherwise undefined, and require California to speculate about the intended meaning of those 22 terms and phrases. California further objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports 23 to place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including 24 but not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the 25 May 24 Court Order. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks, during this 26 expedited period, information concerning matters unrelated to (i) Plaintiff’s assertions of 27 irreparable harm made in its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in 28 Support filed on March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 2-1), and (ii) arguments that Defendants made to rebut 17 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Plaintiff’s claims of irreparable harm in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 74). In that manner, the Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 3 burdensome. And it is not proportional to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for 4 asserting irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited 5 discovery period. 6 Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the scope of 7 the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required to 8 respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 9 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 10 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 11 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 12 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 13 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 14 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 15 California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks California to provide additional 16 information regarding Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and is the best 17 evidence of its contents. California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 18 duplicative information sought in Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, and thus, California 19 incorporates its response and objections to those Interrogatories here. California further objects 20 to this Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple discrete subparts, and therefore counts 21 this “Interrogatory” as two toward the number of Interrogatories that Plaintiff is allowed under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). 23 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, consistent with California 24 Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and the Information Bulletin, California responds that 25 if a California Law Enforcement Agency has a practice of disclosing a person’s release date to 26 members of the public in response to specific requests, then the law enforcement agency may 27 similarly disclose such information to federal immigration authorities, whether in response to a 28 DHS Form I-247A (i.e. Notification Request) or other specific requests. However, a California 18 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Law Enforcement Agency may not disclose a person’s release date to immigration authorities if 2 the information is not available to the public or the circumstances described in California 3 Government Code section 7282.5 do not apply. 4 Further responding, California states that SB 54, which amended Section 7282 and 7282.5 5 of, and added Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, the 6 California Government Code, which was chaptered on October 5, 2017, and which became 7 effective January 4, 2018, regulates California Law Enforcement Agencies, not federal 8 immigration authorities. No provision of SB 54 regulates federal immigration authorities in how 9 they may take custody of a person. However, California Government Code section 7284.6(a)(4) 10 requires California Law Enforcement Agencies not to “[u]se agency or department moneys or 11 personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement 12 purposes, including . . . [t]ransfer[ing] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized 13 by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 14 7282.5.” Therefore, while SB 54 may not preclude a California Law Enforcement Agency from 15 disclosing a person’s release date to immigration authorities, if that information is available to the 16 public, the California Law Enforcement Agency shall not otherwise use its resources to assist in 17 transferring a person into the custody of immigration authorities unless the immigration authority 18 presents a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, as those terms are defined in 19 Government Code sections 7284.4(h) and (i), or California Government Code section 7282.5(a) 20 applies. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 22 State whether, in Defendants’ view, if a California Law Enforcement Agency has a practice 23 or policy pursuant to Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) of the California Government Code, as further 24 defined by Parts III.1.C and III.2.B.i of Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, of making 25 information concerning an individual’s release date public, such as disclosing the information on 26 its website or by providing the information in response to specific requests, federal immigration 27 authorities may take custody of such an individual on a California Law Enforcement Agency’s 28 19 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 premises. If your answer would vary depending on the circumstances, including whether the area 2 in question is open to the public, please explain. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 4 In addition to the foregoing objections, California objects to this Interrogatory because the 5 terms and phrases “practice or policy,” “making information concerning an individual’s release 6 date public,” and “California Law Enforcement Agency’s premises” are vague, ambiguous, or 7 otherwise undefined, and require California to speculate as to the intended meaning of those 8 terms and phrases. California further objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks or purports 9 to place a burden on the State greater than that imposed by applicable laws and rules, including 10 but not limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the 11 May 24 Court Order. California also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent it seeks, during this 12 expedited period, information concerning matters unrelated to (i) Plaintiff’s assertions of 13 irreparable harm made in its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in 14 Support filed on March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 2-1), and (ii) arguments that Defendants made to rebut 15 Plaintiff’s claims of irreparable harm in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 16 Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 74). In that manner, the interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 17 burdensome. And it is not proportional to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s purported basis for 18 asserting irreparable harm in its motion for preliminary injunction, or the abbreviated expedited 19 discovery period. 20 Further, to the extent the Interrogatory seeks California’s contention regarding the scope of 21 the statute in the abstract, it poses a question of pure law, and California is not required to 22 respond to interrogatories raising questions of pure law, and objects on that basis. See 23 AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393, 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 24 Dec. 16, 2014) (“[I]nterrogatories directed to issues of ‘pure law’—i.e., abstract legal issues not 25 dependent on the facts of the case are not permitted”) (citation and some internal punctuation 26 omitted); see also Everest Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Santa Cruz Cty. Bank, No. 15-cv-02085, 2016 WL 27 6311876, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel interrogatory response where 28 “party asking for legal argument without a direct connection to the facts of th[e] case”). 20 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 California also objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks California to provide additional 2 information regarding Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, which speaks for itself and is the best 3 evidence of its contents. California also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 4 duplicative information sought in Interrogatory No 7, and thus, California incorporates its 5 response and objections to those Interrogatories here. 6 Subject to and without waiving any of its foregoing objections, consistent with California 7 Government Code section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and the Information Bulletin, California responds that 8 Senate Bill No. 54 regulates California Law Enforcement Agencies, not federal immigration 9 authorities. No provision of SB 54 regulates federal immigration authorities in how they may 10 take custody of a person. However, under California Government code section 7284.6(a)(4), a 11 “California law enforcement agenc[y] shall not: [u]se agency or department moneys or personnel 12 to investigate, interrogate, detain, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, 13 including . . . [t]ransfer[ing] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a 14 judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.” 15 Therefore, while SB 54 may not prevent a California Law Enforcement Agency from disclosing a 16 person’s release date to immigration authorities, if that information is available to the public, the 17 California Law Enforcement Agency shall not otherwise use its resources to transfer the person 18 into the custody of immigration authorities unless the immigration authority presents a judicial 19 warrant or judicial probable cause determination, as those terms are defined in California 20 Government Code section 7284.4(h) and (i), or California Government Code section 7282.5(a) 21 applies. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 Dated: June 1, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, 2 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL NEWMAN SATOSHI YANAI ANTHONY HAKL Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHRISTINE CHUANG CHEROKEE DM MELTON MAUREEN C. ONYEAGBAKO 3 4 5 6 7 8 /s/ Lee I. Sherman LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for the State of California 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 Defs’ Resps. & Objs. Pl.’s First Set Interrogs. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

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?