United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 177

NOTICE of ERRATA by United States of America re 171 Exhibit O in Reply to Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibit O)(Bingham, Lauren) Modified on 6/11/2018 (Donati, J).

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 WONG

TAKEN ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2018
1:45 P.M.

US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
880 FRONT STREET, ROOM 6239
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Tom Wong PHD

May 30, 2018

1

NDT Assgn # 26691-1

APPEARANCES

2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF:
4 LAUREN C. BINGHAM, ESQUIRE
5 JOSEPH A. DARROW, 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 [phone]
13 [e-mail]
14 [e-mail]
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 [phone]
23 [e-mail]
24
25

Page 2

Tom Wong PHD

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 [phone]
13 [phone] Fax
14 [e-mail]
15 [e-mail]
16 [e-mail]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3

Tom Wong PHD

May 30, 2018

NDT Assgn # 26691-1

Page 16

1 some research, for example, analyzes by county and some
2 by city.
3

Have you only done research at the county

4 level then?
5

A

Yes.

6

Q

So my analysis is on the county level.

Okay.

Do you have a standard definition that

7 you would use, for example, for a sanctuary state or a
8 sanctuary county?
9

A

Yeah, so the definition that I use is one of

10 policy that delimits local cooperation with federal
11 immigration enforcement officials.

So we know that

12 delimit can take a lot of different forms; it can be on
13 detainers, it can be on notifications, it can be on the
14 use of public money for federal immigration enforcement
15 functions, so that's my definition.

I feel it's a

16 sufficient umbrella to capture the range of different
17 things that localities do.
18

Q

Okay.

Are there any other definitions that

19 are used in the academic world to define sanctuary city,
20 state, county?
21

A

Yes, I believe so.

So another definition is

22 in my declaration, so I refer to a sanctuary city study
23 and the definition used in that sanctuary study is the
24 passage of an ordinance at the city level that prohibits
25 funding sort of, you know, city funds from going to

Tom Wong PHD

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

Tom Wong PHD

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

Tom Wong PHD

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

Tom Wong PHD

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?

Tom Wong PHD

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?

Tom Wong PHD

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 --

Tom Wong PHD

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

Tom Wong PHD

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.

Tom Wong PHD

1

Q

May 30, 2018

NDT Assgn # 26691-1

So that means that according to your

2 interpretation of ICE's data, that 53 were essentially
3 sanctuary jurisdictions; is that right?
4

A

Yeah, 53 in some way delimited how it was

5 going to work with ICE.
6

Q

Okay.

So even though they at least -- as we

7 talked about, at least 17 of those 53 were cooperating
8 in some way under your definition of sanctuary
9 jurisdiction county in this instance, they qualified as
10 a sanctuary county?
11

A

No, I wouldn't say that.

There were -- there

12 were five that clearly, based on the criteria of
13 notification and detainers where we -- we can't
14 categorize them as sanctuary at all because on both
15 detainer and notifications, they're -- they're
16 complying, but because, again, delimiting can come in a
17 lot of different forms, these 53, if one is saying yes
18 to detainers but no to notifications or vice versa or
19 any sort of combination between, then I categorize them
20 as sanctuary.
21

Q

Okay.

22

A

Yeah.

23

Q

I think we just -- I think maybe I phrased my

24 question badly, so that was the answer I was looking
25 for.

Thank you.

Page 32

1

CERTIFICATE

2
3

I, the undersigned, Christian Teare, am a

4

videographer on behalf of on behalf of NAEGELI DEPOSITION

5

AND TRIAL.

6

made the video recording of the deposition of Tom Wong,

7

PHD, in the above captioned matter on the 30th day of May,

8

2018, taken at the location of US Attorney's Office, 880

9

Front St, RM 6239, San Diego, CA 92101, consisting of 1

10
11

I do hereby certify that I have accurately

DVD(s).
No alterations, additions or deletions were made

12

thereto.

I further certify that I am not related to any

13

of the parties in the matter and have no financial

14

interest in the outcome of this matter.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Christian Teare, Videographer

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

Page 181

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 _____
19

_____
11

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “ports” of entry instead of “points” of entry

12 _____
22

_____
22

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “No, only the dataset, the FOIA data”

13 _____
33

9
_____

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “counties” instead of “kinds”

14 _____
44

_____
18

________________________________________ the…”
Wong word: should be “because all of the…” instead of “but all of

15 _____
55

_____
1

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “multivariate” instead of “multi-variant”

16 _____
55

_____
7

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “multivariate” instead of “multi-variable”

58
17 _____

15
_____

Wrong word: should be “omitted” variable bias instead of “admitted”
________________________________________

18 _____
58

18
_____

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “omitted” variable bias instead of “admitted”

19 _____
58

_____
20

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “omitted” variable bias instead of “admitted”

20 _____
60

_____
9

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “omitted” variable bias instead of “admitted”

21 _____
62

_____
3

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “do file” instead of “due file”

22 _____
63

_____
12

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “We can’t” instead of “We can”

76
23 _____

_____
19

Wrong word: should be “see less crime” instead of “say less crime”
________________________________________

24
25

Signature___________________________
Tom Wong

Tom Wong PHD

1

May 30, 2018

NDT Assgn # 26691-1

Page 181

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 _____
87

_____
4

________________________________________
Typo: should be “DHS” instead of “DHA”

12 _____
97

_____
7

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be deportation “raids” not “rates”

13 _____
122

13
_____

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “— I don’t think” instead of “— I think”

123
14 _____

_____
14

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be deportation “raid” not “rate”

15 _____
151

_____
2

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “packet” instead of “pocket”

16 _____
152

_____
9

________________________________________
Typo: should be “U.S. citizen children” instead of “U.S. citizen, children”

158
17 _____

_____
9

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “bivariate” instead of “by variant”

18 _____
170

_____
1

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “discrete” instead of “discreet”

19 _____
175

_____
11

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “do file” instead of “due file”

177
20 _____

_____
2

________________________________________
Wrong word: should be “deposition” instead of “definition”

21 _____

_____

________________________________________

22 _____

_____

________________________________________

23 _____

_____

________________________________________

24
25

Signature___________________________
Tom Wong

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
California
14 Signed at ____________________________, ____________
San Diego

15 on the ______________ day of ________________, 2018.
June
Seventh
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Signature___________________________
Tom Wong

Page 182