United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 74

OPPOSITION by Xavier Becerra, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr, State of California to 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Declaration of Cherokee Melton)(Sherman, Lee) Modified on 5/7/2018 (Fabillaran, J).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
ANTHONY HAKL
CHEROKEE DM MELTON
LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
State Bar No. 272271
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF CHEROKEE
MELTON IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of
California, in his official capacity; and
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of
Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez
California, in his official capacity,
Action Filed: March 6, 2018
Defendants.
v.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Decl. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

I, Cherokee Melton, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a member of the California State Bar, admitted to practice before this Court,

3

employed by the Office of the California Attorney General as a Deputy Attorney General, and

4

counsel to Defendants in this action.

5

2.

In December 2017, the Attorney General’s Office began visiting California

6

detention facilities that hold civil immigration detainees, pursuant to Assembly Bill 103 (AB

7

103), codified at Government Code § 12532.

8
9

3.

As of February 2018, the Attorney General’s Office had visited the following five

county-owned facilities holding civil immigration detainees: Contra Costa West County

10

Detention Facility; James A. Musick Facility; Theo Lacy Facility; Rio Cosumnes Correction

11

Center; and Yuba County Jail.

12

4.

The Attorney General’s Office has not yet gained access to the following four

13

privately-owned facilities: Adelanto Detention Center; Mesa Verde Detention Facility; Imperial

14

Regional Detention Facility; and Otay Mesa Detention Center.

15

5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

16

certified transcript of the deposition of Thomas Homan, taken on Tuesday, April 10, 2018, in

17

Washington D.C.

18

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

19

USvCA_Homan_Depo000463, produced at the deposition of Mr. Homan on April 10, 2018, and

20

marked as Homan Exhibit 5. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has

21

been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request to Seal

22

Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

23

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

24

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

25

USvCA_Homan_Depo000389, produced at the deposition of Mr. Homan on April 10. 2018. This

26

document was designated CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under

27

seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’

28

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.
1
Decl. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

2

USvCA_Homan_Depo000246-250, produced at the deposition of Mr. Homan on April 10, 2018.

3

This document was designated CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally

4

under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of

5

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently

6

herewith.

7

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

8

certified transcript of the deposition of Todd Hoffman, including an errata sheet with corrections

9

to cited sections of the excerpts, taken Thursday, April 12, 2018, in Washington D.C.

10

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

11

USvCA_Hoffman_Depo000001-000005, produced at the deposition of Mr. Hoffman on April 10,

12

2018, and marked as Hoffman Exhibit 11. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by

13

Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request

14

to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

15

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

16

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

17

USvCA_Hoffman_Depo000006-000011, produced at the deposition of Mr. Hoffman on April 10,

18

2018, and marked Hoffman Exhibit 12. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by

19

Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request

20

to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

21

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

22

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

23

USvCA_Hoffman_Depo0000012-000017, produced at the deposition of Mr. Hoffman on April

24

10, 2018, and marked Hoffman Exhibit 13. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by

25

Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request

26

to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

27

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

28

2
Decl. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Bates No.

2

USvCA_Hoffman_Depo0000018-000023, produced at the deposition of Mr. Hoffman on April

3

10, 2018, and marked Hoffman Exhibit 14. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by

4

Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request

5

to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

6

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith

7
8
9

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a webpage from the

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office that I accessed and downloaded on May 2, 2018.
15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a news article titled “Alameda County Sheriff’s

10

Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Public Stirs Concern Among Immigrant Rights

11

Advocates,” dated April 3, 2018. I accessed and downloaded this article on May 2, 2018 at

12

https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/04/03/alameda-county-sheriffs-

13

office-decision-to-make-inmate-release-dates-public-stirs-concern-among-immigrant-rights-

14

advocates.

15

16.

16
17

Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the privilege log

produced by the United States on April 19, 2018 in this matter.
17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a summary index of information contained in

18

detention facility contracts, Exhibits N-S, which were produced by Plaintiff and designated

19

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff, and have been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

20

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

21

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

22

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of an

23

Intergovernmental Service Agreement produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated

24

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

25

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

26

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

27
28

19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of an

Intergovernmental Service Agreement produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated
3
Decl. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

2

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

3

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

4

20.

Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of an

5

Intergovernmental Service Agreement produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated

6

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

7

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

8

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

9

21.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of an

10

Intergovernmental Service Agreement produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated

11

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

12

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

13

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

14

22.

Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of a contract

15

for detention services produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated CONFIDENTIAL by

16

Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order. See Notice of Request

17

to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

18

Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

19

23.

Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of an

20

Intergovernmental Agreement produced by Plaintiff. This exhibit was designated

21

CONFIDENTIAL by Plaintiff and has been filed provisionally under seal pending Court Order.

22

See Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

23

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed concurrently herewith.

24
25
26
27
28

4
Decl. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

l declare unde r penalty of pe1:jury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

2

true and correct and that thi s declaration was executed on May 4, 2018 in Los Angeles,

3

California.

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24

25

26
27

28

5
Deel. of Cherokee Melton in Supp. of Defs.' Opp'n to Pl. 's Mot. for Prelim . lnj.
( I8-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

EXHIBIT A

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 36
1

were accurate and up to date.

2

I'm -- certainly, you know, would say the numbers

3

are different today, as of today, because people

4

have been arrested since I've signed this.

5

Q

Thank you.

I don't know --

In fiscal year 2018, has ICE

6

increased its immigration enforcement operations

7

in California?

8
9

A

We have increased our enforcement

footprint in California.

10

Q

In what specific ways?

11

A

I have sent more officers and agents to

12

the State of California to do the same job we used

13

to do with less officers and agents.

14

Q

Besides sending more agents, are there

15

other ways in which ICE has increased its

16

immigration enforcement activities in California?

17

A

Again, the prioritization has changed.

18

The aperture of those who fall within a priority

19

has increased.

20

as per the executive order.

21

collateral arrests because we can't work in a

22

jail, which means we have to go to a neighborhood

23

where we'll find collaterals.

There are more

That's probably the biggest changes.

24
25

So there are more fugitive arrests

Q
212-279-9424

Do you attribute the increase to [sic]
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 37
1

immigration enforcement activities in California

2

to SB 54?

3

A

I contribute [sic] the increase in

4

non-criminal alien arrests and the increase in

5

collateral arrests to SB 54, yes.

6
7
8
9

Q

And can you please explain why you

attribute it to SB 54?
A

Because when we used to have offices

inside the jail, one officer could sit in the

10

county jail and process 10, 12 aliens a day.

11

that jail chooses to release those people, I have

12

to send a fug-ops team, which is usually staffed

13

by five or six officers, to locate that person.

14

When

So one officer used to process 10 to 12

15

aliens a day.

16

fug-ops team to go find one person.

17

required me to send more resources to the State of

18

California to do the same job we used to do with

19

less.

20

the jail.

21

Now I've got to send an entire
So that has

We lost the efficiency of working inside

So that's had a direct impact on our

22

operations, not only costing more money for the

23

government to send more additional officers out

24

there to support at large operations, it also puts

25

my officers at great risk.
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 42
1

A

It has to be submitted and requested

2

through HSI leadership in the field office.

3

don't know if that's -- at what level that is.

4

mean, back when I was an agent, it was the head of

5

that office, which would be the ADDI.

6

sure what the approval level is now for an

7

administrative subpoena.

8

the staff to request an administrative subpoena,

9

draw the administrative subpoena up and have

10
11

So I
I

I'm not

But it requires work by

someone approve it, sign it, then serve it.
Q

In this situation in which you had to

12

obtain an administrative subpoena, how long after

13

the initial request for the I-9 inspection did you

14

obtain the subpoena?

15

A

I do not know.

16

Q

Do you have enough information to give a

17

good faith estimate of how long?

18

A

No.

19

Q

Do you know whether it was within one

20

week of the initial request for the I-9

21

inspection?

22

A

No.

I don't recall what the e-mail said

23

other than there's a delay.

24

time frame in the e-mail or he said it verbally, I

25

don't recall.
212-279-9424

So I -- if there's a

But I just -- during the I-9
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 43
1

process, the operations, knowing the difficulties

2

with the legislation, I asked for information on

3

how the operation was going.

4

issue that I remember being briefed on.

5

have a time frame.

6

Q

This was just one
I do not

So after you served the administrative

7

subpoena, were you able to obtain the documents

8

that you needed for your inspection?

9

A

That is my understanding.

10

Q

Besides this one company that we are just

11

talking about, do you know of any other incidents

12

about employers being confused about what they are

13

or are not allowed to do during an I-9 inspection?

14

A

Not specifically other than what I read,

15

of course, the numerous media reports about

16

employers being confused.

17

Q

What media reports are you referring to?

18

A

News stories.

I read news clips every

19

morning when I come to work, and there was a lot

20

of news stories about our worksite operations in

21

California and how some employers seem to be

22

confused on complying with federal law or the

23

state law.

24
25

Q

Do you recall any specific employers

referenced in these news clips that you reviewed?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 44
1

A

No.

2

Q

Besides this one company in San Francisco

3

that we talked about, since the passage of AB 450,

4

have any employers informed ICE that they are

5

confused about what they are or are not allowed to

6

provide during the I-9 inspection?

7

A

Not that I'm aware of.

8

Q

Since the passage of AB 450, have any

9

employers informed ICE that they are confused

10

about what documents may or may not be provided

11

without a warrant?

12
13

A

Can I go back to the previous question?

I just remembered something.

14

Q

Yes.

15

A

On that case in San Francisco, there was

16

another issue.

17

subpoena to get the I-9s because they didn't seem

18

like they could give them voluntarily, notice of

19

inspection, because of 450.

20

We went and got an administrative

Also, the company notified our agent that

21

they were withdrawing from the IMAGE program

22

because they thought that was in violation.

23

they were, my understanding, part of the ICE IMAGE

24

program, and now no longer because of the

25

legislation.
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

So

212-490-3430

Page 53
1

your answer was wrong.

2

A

It's correct.

3

Q

Okay.

Do you know whether AB 450

4

prohibits the service of additional documents

5

during a form I-9 inspection?

6

A

I do not know.

7

Q

Since the passage of AB 450, are you

8

aware of any instances in California where HSI was

9

denied the ability to serve additional notices on

10

an employer?

11

A

I'm not aware of any.

12

Q

Since the passage of AB 450, are you

13

aware of any instances in California in which an

14

employer did not comply with providing additional

15

notices that were served during an I-9 inspection?

16
17
18

A

Additional notices beyond the notice of

inspection?
Q

Yes.

So additional notices, as

19

referenced in your declaration, includes a notice

20

of technical procedural failures, notice of

21

discrepancies, notice of suspect documents,

22

warning notice and a notice of intent to fine.

23

A

I'm not aware of any.

24

Q

If you go to the middle of the paragraph

25

of paragraph 85, the sentence that begins with,
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 54
1

"This prohibition could impede HSI from obtaining

2

valuable evidence (for example, statements from

3

business owners, employees and/or human resources

4

managers)" -- do you see that sentence?

5

A

Yes.

6

Q

Since the passage of AB 450, are you

7

aware of any instances where HSI has been impeded

8

from obtaining valuable evidence that could have

9

been used in the prosecution of an employer?

10

A

Could you repeat the question again?

11

Q

Yes.

Since the passage of AB 450, are

12

you aware of any instances where HSI has been

13

impeded from obtaining valuable evidence that

14

could have been used in the prosecution of an

15

employer?

16

A

17
18

I'm not aware of any, but we certainly

wouldn't know what we don't know.
Q

The next sentence states, "This

19

prohibition may also prevent HSI from obtaining

20

sufficient determination -- sufficient information

21

to determine the existing -- existence of

22

aggravating or mitigating factors."

23

Do you see that sentence?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

Have any such incidents occurred?

212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 55
1

A

Not that I'm aware of.

2

Q

Let's turn --

3

A

I think the reason why this affidavit is

4

worded the way it is is based on our experience of

5

what happens during worksite operations, that this

6

is certainly an issue that we're concerned about

7

from past experience.

8
9

As I discussed before, doing a lot of
this work in a public area will tend to -- people

10

won't be freely discussing issues that would be

11

very important to criminal investigations or

12

protecting victims of trafficking or peonage.

13

all of -- well, I don't know of any specific

14

incident that may have happened in California yet.

15

I think the possibility is very strong that it

16

will impede what we're trying to do.

17

Q

So

And you believe that possibility is very

18

strong based on your experience as a law

19

enforcement official; is that correct?

20

A

Yes.

21

Q

Is there any other basis for your belief?

22

A

Just my belief, along with other law

23

enforcement officers I've talked to that do this

24

type of work.

25

within law enforcement as a profession that we
212-279-9424

I think there's an understanding

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 57
1

Are those individuals within ICE?

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

Have you spoken with any law enforcement

4

agencies or officers in California about AB 450

5

and the impact?

6

A

No.

I spoke to Derek Benner.

I told you

7

he relayed his findings from the offices in

8

California, but I have not specifically talked to

9

any agent in the State of California.

10
11

Q

Let's turn to paragraph 86.

Let me know

when you've had a chance to review.

12

A

Okay.

13

Q

Do you know of any incidents since AB 450

14

went into effect where an employer's inability to

15

consent to federal immigration officials entering

16

the premises impeded an investigation?

17

A

No.

Other than the one case in San

18

Francisco where they did not hand over -- they

19

felt like they couldn't comply with the notice of

20

inspection.

21

I don't have any information -- any examples of

22

that.

23

Q

But as far as entering the premises,

At the end of the paragraph, you mention

24

human smuggling and trafficking, and you've

25

mentioned that a few times today as well, as some
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 58
1

of your potential concerns.

2

incidents since AB 450 went into effect that has

3

caused detriment to ICE's enforcement efforts in

4

human smuggling and trafficking efforts?

5

A

Do you know of any

I don't have any specific examples, but

6

again, we don't know what we don't know, because

7

we haven't had private meetings with

8

employers/employees.

That's my concern.

9

Q

Let's turn to paragraph 87, please.

10

A

Okay.

11

Q

Are you aware of any incidents since

12

AB 450 went into effect where an employer's

13

failure to permit entry to federal immigration

14

officials led to the disclosure of an employee's

15

personal information?

16

A

No.

17

Q

Please turn to paragraph 88.

How has

18

AB 450 adversely affected ICE's worksite

19

enforcement investigations?

20

A

Other than the incident that we spoke of

21

in San Francisco, I think this paragraph talks

22

about what AB 450 will do to our operations and

23

what risk it will cause.

24
25

Q

In the fourth line down, you state that,

"This could lead to a violent confrontation."
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 59
1

Do you see that sentence?

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

Are you aware of any violent

4

confrontations which have occurred as a result of

5

AB 450?

6

A

No.

7

Q

Let's turn to paragraph 60, please.

8

A

You said 60?

9

Q

60, 6-0.

This particular paragraph

10

relates to AB 103.

11

inspections pursuant to that section has caused

12

the facilities to expend resources and presents a

13

burdensome intrusion into facility operations and

14

pulls scarce resources away.

15

And you discuss that the

Can you please describe, in as much

16

detail as you can, the nature of burdensome

17

intrusion into facility operations?

18

A

It has been briefed to me that -- and

19

based on my experience, when you do a facility

20

inspection, it requires people to be present to

21

host the inspection.

22

many documents.

23

the facility.

24

other work are pulled from that work to gather

25

documents, prepare for the inspections, host the
212-279-9424

It requires a gathering of

It requires clearances to come in
People that would normally be doing

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 60
1

inspections, do follow-ups for the inspections.

2

We don't have a separate staff that does

3

nothing but prepare for inspections.

They've got

4

to be pulled from other duties, whether it's guard

5

duty, you know, management duties, you know,

6

whatever.

7

facilities to have yet, you know, another

8

inspection that's going to require them to expend

9

resources and spend time and energy preparing for

It just causes an undue burden on

10

and responding to and providing for the

11

inspection.

12

Q

Have any specific facilities stated to

13

you or ICE that this is a burdensome intrusion

14

into their operations?

15

A

I did not speak to the facilities.

I was

16

briefed by my staff and detention management

17

staff.

18

believe Tae Johnson, who runs the detention

19

management division at headquarters, provided the

20

information that the facilities were complaining

21

about the burdensome extra work in pulling

22

resources to do this work from other critical

23

areas.

24
25

Q

In the -- gathering the affidavit, I

Do you know what facilities complained to

Tae Johnson?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 61
1

A

No, I do not.

2

Q

When you were briefed by the staff and

3

detention management staff, did they provide you

4

details of which facilities complained to them?

5

A

I do not recall.

In the supporting

6

documentation I reviewed, I think there was some

7

documentations talking about specific facilities,

8

if I recall correctly, but, again, this was -- I

9

was briefed by my staff who was briefed by the

10

detention staff.

11

personally with Tae Johnson.

12

supporting documentation there was some

13

documentation that talked about the facilities,

14

but I don't specifically recall what facilities.

15

Q

I did not have discussions
But I believe in the

When you refer to supporting

16

documentation, are you referring to e-mail

17

communications?

18

A

I believe they're e-mails.

19

Q

Are there any other type of --

20

A

I don't recall.

21

Q

-- communications?

22

A

I don't recall.

23

Q

When were you --

24

A

Tae Johnson is a senior executive in my

25

staff, an SES.
212-279-9424

He's been doing detention
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 67
1

dearly, and that's information that, if it became

2

exposed to someone coming in doing an audit, that

3

would be a violation of federal law.

4

even give that information to members of Congress.

5

So there's -- that's very serious.

6

We don't

And that's another -- besides the privacy

7

issue, we have certain statutes that protect

8

information from [sic] certain category of aliens.

9

And that's another concern about these

10
11

inspections.
Q

Do you know of any DHS or ICE privacy

12

policies that have been violated as a result of

13

AB 103?

14

A

No.

15

Q

I'm going to refer back to -- I believe

16

this is Exhibit 3.

It's the February 20th, 2017

17

enforcement memo.

18

page 5 of that memorandum, section G.

19

discusses aligning the department's privacy

20

policies with the law.

If you could please turn to
And that

21

A

Okay.

22

Q

So the first sentence states that, "The

23

department will no longer afford Privacy Act

24

rights and protections to persons who are neither

25

U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents."
212-279-9424

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 70
1

memorandum to impact privacy protections for

2

individuals who are not U.S. citizens or who are

3

not lawful permanent residents?

4
5
6

A

That's what it says.

But again, I think

that the policy itself is still being worked on.
Q

Okay.

Do you have an understanding of

7

what privacy rights still exist for individuals

8

who are not U.S. citizens or not lawful permanent

9

residents?

10

A

No, I do not.

That's why I have a

11

privacy shop and that's why I have the office of

12

principal legal advisor to advise me what we can

13

and can't do as far as release of privacy

14

information.

15

Q

Do you know of any public disclosures of

16

any information about detainees that have resulted

17

from the AB 103 inspections?

18

A

I'm not aware of any.

19

Q

So let's turn to paragraph 65 of your

20

declaration.

21

1367 regarding information relating to individuals

22

who are applicants or beneficiaries of immigration

23

benefits under the Violence Against Women Act or a

24

T or U visa.

25

this before on your last answer.
212-279-9424

So this discusses 8 U.S.C. section

I believe you generally mentioned

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 73
1
2

that have been deterred as a result of AB 103?
A

I believe there are some facilities in

3

the State of California we weren't able to do a

4

new contract with or expand the contract because

5

of that law.

6

Q

Which facilities are you talking about?

7

A

I believe it's -- in paragraph 53, it

8

says, "ICE's efforts to expand its detention

9

capacity in Sutter, Solano, Placer, Shasta, Fresno

10

Stanislaus and San Mateo counties have been

11

completely frustrated by the enactment of AB 103."

12
13
14

Q

Do you understand that the -- whether

these facilities are county facilities?
A

I'm sure they're IGSAs.

I don't know if

15

they're county or -- they're serving property --

16

IGSA is intergovernment service agreements, but I

17

don't know if they're counties or not.

18

know.

19

Q

I don't

Do you know of any specific private

20

contractors that have been deterred from working

21

with ICE as a result of AB 103?

22

A

I can tell you that our two biggest

23

contractors, CoreCivic and Geo, G-E-O, are

24

concerned that this law will cause great hardship

25

for them and require resources being pulled off
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 74
1

critical mission things to, again, do these

2

inspections that we think are unnecessary.

3
4

Q

How many facilities in California does

CoreCivic operate?

5

A

I do not know.

6

Q

Do you know if they operate any in

7

California?

8

A

I do not know.

9

Q

How many facilities in California does

10
11

Geo operate?
A

I know they have the Adelanto facility,

12

which is a big facility.

13

that.

14

Q

15

But I don't know beyond

So besides Adelanto, you don't know what

other facilities in California Geo operates?

16

A

No.

17

Q

Do you know if there are any others?

18

A

I do not know.

19

Q

When did CoreCivic relay these concerns

20
21

to you or ICE?
A

CoreCivic, I don't recall.

It was a

22

general conversation with them about legislation.

23

I don't even know if it was specific to

24

California, about the way the California

25

legislation, if it would expand beyond -212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 75
1

elsewhere, what their concerns are.

2
3

Geo was specific to California.

A couple

of months ago in a conversation.

4

Q

Did you participate in the conversation?

5

A

One of them, yes.

6

Q

How many conversations were there?

7

A

Just one.

8

Q

And please discuss the substance of that

9
10

conversation.
A

It's just the difficulty in complying

11

with the laws.

12

require yet another inspection that we think is

13

unnecessary, because these are federal contracts,

14

these are federal prisoners detained under federal

15

authority.

16

certainly don't believe there should be any

17

inspections to talk about due process of people

18

that are in federal custody, under federal

19

authority, conditions of confinement when we have

20

our own set of standards which is much higher than

21

most states.

22

As I said before, it's going to

We have our own set of standards.

We

So there's this general feeling that this

23

is -- it's burdensome, that they're going to be

24

required to pull resources to do these

25

inspections, when we have numerous inspections
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 76
1

already at these facilities from various different

2

components.

3

So again, it's -- it's talk of

4

burdensomeness -- right? -- extra work, pulling

5

people from their duties to host these things and

6

gather documents and paperwork and making people

7

available for interviews and so forth.

8
9
10

Q

In that conversation, did Geo express any

concerns about the Adelanto facility specifically?
A

No.

It was a general conversation about

11

the legislation, how it's going to impact

12

operations.

13
14

Q

Okay.

And when you say legislation, you

mean AB 103?

15

A

Right.

16

Q

Was there any discussion --

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

-- about other legislation?

19

A

Not that I can recall.

20

Q

Did you discuss anything else in that

21
22

conversation?
A

I'm certain we did.

It was a meeting to

23

discuss -- we have meetings with our contractors

24

all the time.

That was brought up during one of

25

the meetings.

So I'm certain -- I'm sure -- I

212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 77
1

can't remember, but when we have these meetings,

2

we talk about various contracts, various proposals

3

issues with facilities.

4

subject we talked during the meeting.

And this is just one

5

Q

Was this in person?

6

A

In person, in my building.

7

Q

Has Geo terminated its contract with ICE

8

relating to federal detention facilities?

9

A

No.

10

Q

You had mentioned the general

11

conversations that you may have had with

12

CoreCivic.

13

conversations?

14
15

A

No.

Were you directly involved with those

These conversations were relayed to

me through my staff.

16

Q

And when you say staff, who do you mean?

17

A

I believe it was Tae Johnson and Matt

18

Albence.

19

Q

And what did they relay to you?

20

A

It was a conversation about the whole

21

AB 103 and the predicament it puts us in about --

22

with our contractors; you know, yet another

23

inspection on top of the ones we already do, how

24

burdensome it is, and we certainly don't agree

25

that California should be doing it because of all
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 98
1

this form, is that encompassed in --

2

A

That's when we --

3

Q

-- that section that I --

4

A

That's when we transfer an alien to

5

another law enforcement agency at their request

6

for criminal investigative purposes or prosecution

7

purposes.

8

Q

9
10
11

So if number 2 on this form is checked

off, is that the item that would be checked off if
ICE was requesting a transfer back to ICE?
A

This is regarding -- when we have someone

12

in custody and we transfer them out of our custody

13

to another LEA --

14

Q

Right.

15

A

-- saying, when you're done with them,

16

we'd like them back.

17

Q

Right.

18

A

That's where this falls into play.

19

Q

Okay.

Great.

So when ICE makes a

20

detainer notification or transfer request, ICE

21

would use this form, correct?

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

So in paragraph 39 when you talk about

24

the increase in detainers not being honored, do

25

you refer to both the request to detain, notify
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 99
1

ICE and to transfer individuals to ICE upon

2

completion of their time in custody?

3

A

I think it basically is for them to

4

detain somebody for our attention.

That's the

5

majority of it.

6

intention was to clearly focus on them detaining

7

an alien for us.

It could include both.

8

Q

9

then?

10

A

That's my focus, yes.

11

Q

Okay.

But my

So that's your focus in this paragraph,

How does ICE know that there's

12

been an increase in detainers not being honored

13

since January 2018?

14

A

We track it in various ways.

If the

15

PERC, the Pacific Enforcement Response Center,

16

sent the detainer and we are notified they will

17

not honor the detainer, so they proactively tell

18

us they're not going to honor it, then we lift the

19

detainer in our database so it was a detainer

20

lift.

21

Many times if a law enforcement

22

jurisdiction does not honor detainers and don't

23

have a relationship with us, we won't know if they

24

honor the detainer or if they release somebody

25

until we -- he is re-apprehended, either by a
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 100
1

local police department or ourselves.

2

So it depends on the relationship with

3

the LEA.

4

sometimes they we at least notify us they're not

5

going to honor it.

6

anything.

Sometimes it's captured in the

7

database.

Sometimes it's not.

8

ways we find out about detainers not being

9

honored.

10

There's different relationships.

So

Sometimes they won't tell us

So it's various

Certainly if we dropped a detainer on

11

somebody and -- today, and three days later he's

12

rearrested by a law enforcement agency someplace

13

or arrested by us someplace, the detainer wasn't

14

honored.

15

say, I'm not honoring your detainer.

16

released him, didn't honor it.

17

through the rearrest.

18

Q

19

A

They just

We find out

rearrest?

20

But the law enforcement agency didn't

And how would you find out through the

Because when we rearrest him and enter

21

him in the database, the database is going to show

22

we've had him before, we dropped the detainer for

23

and it will show previous actions for the agency.

24
25

Q

So if the person has been rearrested, you

would know, and you also mentioned that if the LEA
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 101
1

tells you that they're not honoring the detainer,

2

you would know.

3

would know?

4

A

Is there any other way that you

It would either be communication from the

5

LEA or we would get information through a

6

rearrest.

7

from a third party that the person was released.

8
9
10

Q

It's always possible we could find out

And then when you find that information

out, then how does ICE track that information?
A

Of we -- once we verify the detainer

11

hasn't been honored and he's no longer in custody,

12

then we'll add to that an active case to go look

13

for him.

14

Q

And where is that information stored?

15

A

It would be in the -- I believe it's in

16

the EARM database.

17

in that database.

18

the number of detainers we know weren't honored --

19

they would have a record of.

20

exact number, because we really don't know, and

21

jurisdictions have zero relationship with us.

22

won't find out they didn't honor -- if they don't

23

honor detainers, somebody who doesn't get

24

rearrested, we may not know for a long time.

25

that data is not as accurate as I wish it would
212-279-9424

I'm not 100 percent sure it's
I know we track it.

We track

Again, it's not an

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

We

So

212-490-3430

Page 102
1

be, but we do the best we can with the data we

2

have.

3

Q

4

And when you track it in -- you said

EARM, correct?

5

A

Yeah.

6

Q

When you track it, do you also track if

7

the jurisdiction did not honor the request to --

8

request to notify ICE or the request to transfer

9

an individual in their custody to ICE?

10

A

It should be.

11

Q

Is that tracked separately from the

12

request to detain?

13

A

I do not know.

14

Q

Do you know how many detainers have been

15

issued to California law enforcement agencies in

16

FY 2018?

17

A

It's somewheres in here.

I've got to

18

find it.

19

California alone, ICE issued over 35,000

20

detainers.

21

Q

I thought we said about -- in 2017, in

That's in paragraph 18.

While we're talking about that number, do

22

you know, out of those 35,000, how many were not

23

complied with?

24
25

A

I'm sure we have a number that we're

aware of weren't complied with, that we have data
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 103
1

on.

Again, we track that, so --

2

Q

Right.

3

A

But I don't know, sitting here today,

4
5

what that number is.
Q

But we would be able to -- or I should

6

say you would be able to identify, looking at

7

EARM, how many detainers that California law

8

enforcement agencies did not comply with in 2017?

9

A

I think we -- I think we could tell you

10

how many detainers were not honored because the

11

law enforcement agencies notifies them or not.

12

can also add the number of aliens that were

13

rearrested, so obviously the detainer wasn't

14

honored.

15

We

As I said before, I think from a --

16

different data mines I think we can tell you what

17

we know.

18

Q

So before signing your declaration, were

19

you able to determine that there's been an

20

increase in detainers that have been -- that are

21

not being complied with for FY 2018?

22
23

A

The detainers -- more detainers are being

declined after the enactment of SB 54 --

24

Q

Right.

25

A

-- according to the staff that briefs me.

212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 104
1
2
3

Q

Do you know how they got that

information?
A

I'm sure they got it from the database

4

and through speaking with the field office

5

directors in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San

6

Diego.

7

Q

And do you know by how much has there

8

been an increase in declined detainers since

9

SB 54?

10

A

I do not have that information today.

11

But I think in my affidavit we cited several

12

examples of egregious cases.

13
14

Q

Sure.

And we will -- yeah, we will get

to that.

15

And when a jurisdiction complies with

16

either a detainer notification or transfer

17

request, is that somewhere -- marked somewhere in

18

ICE's databases?

19

A

Yes.

20

Q

Where is that marked?

21

A

Pardon me?

22

Q

Where would the fact that a jurisdiction

23
24
25

complied with a detainer request be marked?
A

I believe it would be in EARM.

If -- if

not only there -- again, I think it's in EARM.
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

I

212-490-3430

Page 120
1

detainer notification and transfer request on it,

2

correct?

3
4
5

A

I know it as -- I know it as immigration

detainer, notice of action.
Q

Okay.

So is -- so does -- how many

6

I-247s have been issued to San Diego since SB 54

7

went into effect?

8

A

I don't have that figure with me.

9

Q

And do you know if any have been honored?

10

A

I do not know.

The list I was supplied

11

with had at least 119, and many since then.

12

mean, the list I saw as part of my book clearly

13

listed 119.

14

the data was pulled, but it had, first, the 119.

15

So I don't have the exact number with me.

16
17

Q

I

Then it had others because of the way

But do you know whether there have been

any that have been honored?

18

A

I don't know for sure.

19

Q

And in the -- your declaration you

20

identify that some of the individuals had criminal

21

charges pending.

22

the -- any of this 119 figure had been previously

23

convicted of a criminal offense?

24
25

A

Do you know whether any of

Based on my experience, many of these

criminals are recidivists.
212-279-9424

So certainly, based on

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 121
1

my 34 years, many of these people had prior

2

criminal convictions.

3

as 50 percent within the first year, 75 percent

4

within three to five years.

5

aliens we arrest have numerous criminal

6

convictions, but to speak specifically to the 119,

7

how many had previous convictions, I don't have

8

that information.

9
10
11

Q

Recidivism rate is as high

Many of the criminal

Would that be information that ICE would

have access to?
A

If we knew who he was and we ran it

12

through NCIC, it would show previous convictions

13

that were recorded, yes.

14

Q

And to what you were just saying about

15

recidivism, what is your basis for saying that a

16

lot of these individuals would be -- would have --

17

be at risk of recidivism?

18

I've been doing this for 34 years.

I've

19

arrested many criminal aliens in my career.

I've

20

seen numerous reports.

21

in front of Congress on data we pulled together to

22

show the risk of those who commit crimes in the

23

United States that are here illegally.

24

them are recidivist criminals.

25

A

Q
212-279-9424

I've testified many times

Many of

So -Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 122
1

A

I think when we do at large operations,

2

what we call safe neighborhoods, safe streets, and

3

we target criminal aliens to be arrested, many of

4

those targets have numerous prior criminal

5

convictions.

6

seen -- I've been a part of operations for many

7

years.

8

based on information that I've seen or been

9

supplied to me, many of the targets of operations

10
11
12

So I've seen data sheets.

I've

So not only based on my experience, but

have multiple criminal convictions.
Q

So I would like to point your attention

now to paragraph 43.

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

Is there anything that is not in this

15

paragraph that you would use to support your basis

16

for thinking that criminal aliens have a risk of

17

recidivism?

18

A

Well, these are numbers that were

19

supplied to me by my senior leadership concerning

20

California.

21

just -- which I didn't think was necessary -- it's

22

my personal experience, my 34 years of what I

23

know, based on my enforcing immigration law for so

24

many years, that many criminal aliens have prior

25

criminal history.
212-279-9424

The only thing I would add to this is

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 145
1

officers on the ground that are making these

2

decisions, they think it's impossible.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Q

So...

Since January 4th, 2018, how many SPBPs

have been denied in California?
A

I don't think I have that with me.

I

don't think I have a number with me.
Q

Do you know how many have been

authorized?

9

A

No.

10

Q

Do you know if there's been any that have

11

been authorized other than the one incident you

12

referred to in paragraph 78?

13

A

I do not.

14

Q

So going to paragraph 78, you say, "In

15

light of the recent enactment of SB 54, ICE must

16

weigh the benefit of a potentially successful

17

prosecution with the very likely risk that the

18

relevant California law enforcement agencies

19

cannot, due to SB 54, notify ICE of an impending

20

release or transfer the [sic] alien to ICE custody

21

for removal upon completion of criminal

22

proceedings."

23

Is -- is this something -- is ICE

24

weighing the benefit something that's new because

25

of SB 54?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 154
1

Q

And again, just talking about the

2

criminal offenses, is that standard practice that

3

ICE would seek a judicial warrant if there is a

4

criminal immigration offense?

5

A

Generally.

I mean, there's -- there's,

6

as you know, many ways you can do it.

You can go

7

through a -- you know, to the U.S. Attorney's

8

Office, you can do an affidavit, and you can go

9

through the whole indictment procedure through the

10

grand jury.

There's various ways to do a case.

11

But, yeah, we -- we get judicial warrants for

12

criminal cases as part of our SOP, for criminal

13

prosecutions.

14

Q

Are there operational --

15

A

Criminal arrests.

16

Q

Are there operational difficulties in

17

obtaining a warrant for a criminal immigration

18

offense?

19

A

We do it every day.

I mean, it's work,

20

but we do it every day.

21

up a magistrate and -- but it's something we do as

22

part of our job.

23
24
25

Q

Again, you've got to free

Since SB 54, has ICE sought warrants from

federal judges for criminal immigration offenses?
A
212-279-9424

We still prosecute criminal cases in the
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 158
1

gang activity and criminal activity within the

2

city of Escondido that we weren't privy to before.

3

So now that we're removed from that cooperative

4

working relationship, that's information we no

5

longer have.

6

And again, that would happen throughout

7

California.

Wherever there was task forces, a

8

local law enforcement agency task force, we lost

9

that intelligence.

We lost that information, or

10

their perspective on what they know.

11

better what's going on in their neighborhoods than

12

the feds do many times, so when you lose that, it

13

just results in less public safety, less

14

successful investigations.

15
16

Q

They know

Do you know how many LEAs have removed

themselves from task forces?

17

A

Not off the top of my head.

18

Q

Are there any examples you can point to?

19

A

Again, anecdotal, from speaking to Derek

20

Benner, because I always ask how it's going in

21

California.

22

agencies remove themselves.

23

where we did a human trafficking case, and the law

24

enforcement agency left it because there was a

25

immigration context.
212-279-9424

There has been law enforcement
There was one case

That was up in northern

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 160
1
2

us.
Q

And when the law enforcement agencies say

3

they don't want to work with ICE anymore, are they

4

providing a reason?

5

A

What's shared with me is that HSI wears

6

an ICE moniker that it has to do with immigration

7

enforcement, it has to be, you know, the current

8

legislation in California limiting cooperation and

9

information sharing.

Again, specifics, you'd have

10

to ask the SACs in those three areas.

11

relaying information that's shared with me through

12

conversation.

13
14

Q

I'm just

Are there still task forces that ICE is

involved in throughout California?

15

A

Yes.

16

Q

Do you know how many?

17

A

No.

18

Q

And do you know the -- how many task

19

forces ICE has been asked to leave since SB 54?

20

A

I don't have a number.

21

Q

Do you know if ICE was asked to leave

22

task forces in California before SB 54?

23

A

Not that I'm aware of.

24

Q

Is ICE able to obtain information it

25

seeks from the FBI?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 162
1

moving, where do you think the load houses are

2

located?

3

These are conversations law enforcement

4

officers should have openly and sharing ideas, and

5

his experiences and his knowledge and how long

6

he's been in that neighborhood, and I don't think

7

anything can replace information sharing in task

8

forces, having face-to-face conversations and

9

trading information.

10

Q

And this is information -- the

11

information you're talking about, this is

12

information about criminal activity, correct?

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

So part of this is that you believe that

15

the information about criminal activity is not

16

being shared with ICE.

Is that -- is that --

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

Is that a part of your concern?

19

A

Yes.

20

Q

I would like to go to paragraph 72.

Have

21

the -- has SB 54's prohibitions on information

22

sharing between local law enforcement agencies and

23

ICE had an impact on HSI's counter-terrorism work?

24

A

It's reported to me that it has.

25

Q

Are there any specific examples that you

212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 163
1
2

can share?
A

I believe it has to do with the JTTF task

3

force's -- the lack of participation.

4

Again,

information and ideas won't be shared.

5

Q

Are there any specific examples?

6

A

No.

I think it goes back to the

7

generality -- again, right now, what's a national

8

security case most of the time don't start out as

9

a national security case.

It starts as a local

10

crime.

11

they've got a -- they've got a -- they have a

12

funding mechanism.

13

to raise money, and they do that through, you

14

know -- whether it's bitcoin or whether it's

15

through cyber crime, whether it's through drug

16

sales, whether it's through, you know, counterfeit

17

goods.

18

Most terrorist organizations has --

They've got to -- they've got

That's where the lack of information may

19

not seem like a national security nexus, but it

20

will grow into a national security nexus.

21

our investigation in a national security sense

22

don't start as a national security case.

23

you don't have that level of cooperation on these

24

task forces and sharing of information, you're

25

going to build less information to support a
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

Most of

So when

212-490-3430

Page 164
1

national security case, or come across information

2

that would lead you to a national security nexus.

3

I don't have any specific examples, no.

4

This is -- again, this is briefings from my senior

5

staff, career professionals who have been criminal

6

investigators their entire career advising me of

7

what's happening on the ground.

8
9

Q

I would like to turn to paragraph 73.

In

that paragraph, you say, "SB 54 has also limited

10

ICE access to aliens who may assist in building

11

criminal cases, thus interfering with ICE's

12

ability to pursue the prosecution or removal of

13

aliens who pose particularly significant threats

14

to public safety or national security."

15

Do you see that?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Are there any circumstances where this

18

has happened since January 4th, 2018?

19

A

I think we have less access to aliens.

20

It's harder to find aliens because the county

21

jails are releasing them without notification to

22

ICE.

23

relationships are built in the jails.

24

where we build informants.

25

information.
212-279-9424

We don't have access to the jails.

Many

That's

That's where we get

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 165
1

Of course, an illegal alien that's in a

2

jail wants to get out of jail, wants to stay here

3

with a green card and wants to stay here with a

4

work authorization will assist us in our

5

investigation.

6

people and we have to go to try to find people, we

7

just have less to build cases from, less to build

8

our intelligence from.

9

about.

10

Q

But when we lose access to these

That's what this talks

Are there any public safety or national

11

security threats that you believe have been caused

12

because of SB 54?

13

A

I think when law enforcement agencies

14

aren't free to share information as partners,

15

intelligence will be lost.

16

detrimental to criminal investigations and

17

national security.

18

of the 9/11 commission.

19

enforcement agencies are comfortable in sharing

20

information.

21

enforcement officer, SB 54 limits that sharing.

22

Q

It's going to be

That was one of the findings
It's important that law

And in my opinion as a law

So is it fair to say that your

23

allegations in this paragraph are based on your

24

experience as a law enforcement officer rather

25

than specific examples?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 176
1

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2

I, Denise M. Brunet, the officer before

3

whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby

4

certify that the witness whose testimony appears

5

in the foregoing deposition was sworn by me; that

6

the testimony of said witness was taken by me

7

stenographically and thereafter reduced to print

8

by means of computer-assisted transcription by me

9

to the best of my ability; that I am neither

10

counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of

11

the parties to this litigation and have no

12

interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome

13

of this matter.

14
15
<%Signature%>
16

Denise M. Brunet

17

Notary Public in and for

18

The District of Columbia

19
20
21

My commission expires:

22

December 14, 2022

23
24
25
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 177
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT

1

2
3

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury

4

that I have read the foregoing transcript of my

5

deposition and except for any corrections or

6

changes noted on the errata sheet, I hereby

7

subscribe to the transcript as an accurate

8

record of

made by me.

9

10
11
12
....._,,;

13

4 1-.'-( - J r'

14

15

r

DATE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

EXHIBIT B
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT C
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT D
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT E

Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
:
THE UNITED STATES OF
:
AMERICA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
: No. 18-264
:
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,,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF:
TODD A. HOFFMAN
DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:

REPORTED BY:

Thursday, April 12, 2018
9:23 a.m.
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
Denise M. Brunet, RPR
Reporter/Notary

21
22
23
24
25
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

A P P E A R A N C E S
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
EREZ REUVENI, ESQUIRE
LAUREN BINGHAM, ESQUIRE
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
450 5th Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C.
20530
[phone]
[e-mail]
On behalf of the Defendants:
CHRISTINE CHUANG, ESQUIRE
State of California
Department of Justice
Bureau of Children's Justice
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2100
Oakland, California
94612
[phone]
christine.chuang.doj.ca.gov
LEE I. SHERMAN, ESQUIRE
CHEROKEE DM MELTON, ESQUIRE
SATOSHI YANAI, ESQUIRE
State of California
Department of Justice
300 S. Spring Street
Suite 1702
Los Angeles, California
90013
[phone]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ALSO PRESENT:

22

Julie A.G. Koller
Louisa Slocum
Liana G.T. Wolf
Dan Reidy, Videographer

23
24
25
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 41
1

A

I'm sorry.

2

Q

That's all right.

3

A

Yeah, the 170.

4

Q

That 170 refers to individuals who were

5

turned over in 2017, correct?

6

A

Correct.

7

Q

Do you know the number of individuals

8

turned over from San Diego field office in 2018?

9

A

I don't know a number specifically now.

10

Q

Do you know that number for the

11

Los Angeles field office?

12

A

For '18?

13

Q

How about for the San Francisco field

14
15

office in 2018?
A

I do not.

16
17

I do not.

MS. MELTON:

Can we take a five-minute

break?

18

MR. REUVENI:

19

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

20

record.

Sure.
We're going off the

The time on the video is 10:11 a.m.

21

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

22

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

23

unit number two.

24

10:23 a.m.

25

This begins media

BY MS. MELTON:
212-279-9424

The time on the video is

We are on the record.

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 46
1

national level.

2

directors are working through this issue now.

3

It's still relatively early in the process, but we

4

are looking at what we need to do at a national

5

level currently.

6

Q

Quite frankly, the field

So there have been no specific policy

7

changes with respect to California and how -- and

8

if individuals are paroled to law enforcement

9

agencies?

10

A

Not at the headquarters level at this

11

time.

Field directors, it's their specific --

12

locations are taking their own actions at this

13

time --

14

Q

What if --

15

A

-- according --

16

Q

I'm sorry.

17

A

-- according to the situation they're

18
19
20
21

encountering.
Q

What does that mean, they're taking

their own actions at this time?
A

Well, for instance, the San Diego port

22

of entry, since the passage of SB 54, I think, on

23

average, are turning five to six criminal aliens.

24

They are removing them immediately at the port of

25

entry verse turning them over to the state and
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 47
1

local agency that wants the individual because we

2

have no assurance we're going to get that

3

individual back.

4

in court.

5

alien at the port of entry.

6

Q

So they're not seeing their day

We take the action of removing that

Are there any circumstances in which

7

you are transferring individuals, aliens to law

8

enforcement agencies in California?

9

A

I'm sure they are.

Again, based on the

10

charge and, again, that's a discretionary decision

11

that's made by the field leadership in that

12

specific location based on the charge, based on

13

maybe the level of cooperation they have with the

14

specific state and local entity.

15

Again, a lot of that may be governed by

16

the charge itself, whether we want them to see

17

their day in court or be removed at the port of

18

entry, with the understanding we may be exposed on

19

the back end and our authority may be undermined

20

if they're subsequently released without our

21

notification.

22

Q

Prior to SB 54, in these counties where

23

you might have -- in these counties where you

24

couldn't be assured that somebody would be

25

returned to you if you paroled them, under what
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 52
1

Q

Do you know how many individuals OFO

2

has chosen not or decided not to transfer to law

3

enforcement agencies in California in 2018?

4

A

How many specifically?

No, other than

5

what I stated earlier.

6

average, about five to six a month they are not

7

turning over criminal aliens to the state and

8

locals.

9
10
11

Q

I know San Diego is, on

I'm sorry, what is five or six a month

for San Diego?
A

Five or six criminal aliens who are

12

arriving in the San Diego ports of entry who are

13

not being turned over to state and locals.

14
15

Q

And all of those individuals are being

removed immediately?

16

A

They would be removed, correct.

17

Q

So you're no longer transferring

18

individuals from the San Diego POE to a law

19

enforcement agency?

20

A

No.

21

Q

Okay.

22
23

That's not what I said.
There are cases where those

individuals are being transferred?
A

Again, it's discretionary based on the

24

field leadership in that location, based on the

25

charge, based on if they believe they're going to
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 53
1

get the individual back.

2

should see their day in court has a higher

3

priority than removing that individual

4

immediately.

5

they make decisions based on that, their

6

experience and their expertise in that area.

7
8

Q

Whether they think they

All those things are weighed in and

Okay.

Thank you.

Let's go to

paragraph 19, please.

9

Are you ready to start?

10

A

Oh, yes.

11

Q

Do you know of any task force, task

12

forces that have been negatively impacted by

13

SB 54?

14

A

15
16

No.

I'm not aware of any impact at

this time.
Q

Okay.

On page 20 of that same

17

paragraph, you talk about a chilling effect on

18

existing relationships with state and local

19

partners.

20
21

What do you mean by chilling effect?
A

Well, again, chilling effect

22

essentially working side by side with fellow law

23

enforcement officers in various capacities,

24

whether it's a task force or where they're coming

25

to the port of entry to pick up warrants and
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 74
1
2

how they became known to the officers.
Q

Do you know how much after the time of

3

release that the field office found out that the

4

person was released?

5
6

A

No.

I do not know that level of

detail.

7

MR. SHERMAN:

I would like to mark as

8

confidential Hoffman Exhibit 12 this document that

9

is Bates number 6 through 11.

10

(Hoffman Confidential Deposition

11

Exhibit Number 12 was marked for

12

identification.)

13
14
15

BY MR. SHERMAN:
Q

Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with

this document?

16

A

Yes, I am.

17

Q

What is this document?

18

A

Again, this is a detainer for this

19

individual, again, wanted via a state or local

20

warrant.

21

this is the document that executed that

22

transaction.

23
24
25

Q

We in turn turned that person over and

Which jurisdiction was this person

turned over to?
A
212-279-9424

I'm not -- unless I'm missing the
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 75
1

obvious here, if it's stated, I don't see it in

2

the documentation you provided, whether it's

3

Los Angeles, could be Los Angeles County sheriffs

4

or Orange County.

5

Q

Do you have any independent knowledge

6

beyond the documentation of who -- of which

7

jurisdiction this person was turned over to?

8
9

A

I don't recall.

At one point, I think

I knew, but I don't recall right now.

I believe

10

this was a fraud charge but not certain which

11

entity they were turned over to within the state.

12

I thought it was one of those two county sheriffs,

13

but I believe it was -- it might have been Orange

14

County, but, again, I'm not seeing that in the

15

documentation you provided.

16

Q

I would just like to represent for the

17

record that this was the documentation that was

18

provided to us today that we are showing to you.

19

Do you know what criminal offense the

20

person was charged for?

21

that you're referring to?

22
23
24
25

A

Was it this fraud offense

My recollection, this was a fraud

offense and a warrant for fraud.
Q

Do you know if this individual had any

prior criminal conviction?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 76
1

A

Not to my knowledge.

2

Q

How did CBP come into contact with this

3
4
5

person?
A

This person was an applicant for

admission.

6

Q

What were the circumstances of that?

7

A

I'm not -- I don't know the specific

8

circumstances.

I assume they arrived at the

9

Los Angeles International Airport and upon

10

processing is when we determined that they had a

11

NCIC action against them and then we followed up

12

with the originating agency.

13

Q

And CBP released this person to an LEA?

14

A

I'm sorry?

15

Q

Let me -- did CBP release this person

16
17

to a law enforcement agency?
A

Yes.

It would be the same.

In this

18

case, at Los Angeles Airport, we would turn the

19

individual over to Los Angeles World Airlines

20

Police Department and then they would work with

21

the originating agency to do the second turn over.

22

Q

Do you know if the law enforcement

23

agency that this person ultimately went into

24

custody with released this person?

25

A
212-279-9424

Yes.

It's information received from
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 77
1

the field as, again, this person -- the detainer

2

was not honored.

3

public.

4

they have no status in the United States and they

5

were released.

6
7

Q

This person was released to the

They're still an applicant for admission,

Do you know when the law enforcement

agency released the person?

8

A

I do not know the specifics.

9

Q

Do you know how the field office found

10
11

out that the person was released?
A

Again, like the similar case, it was

12

brought to their attention by doing research and

13

via public website.

14
15
16

Q

Do you know if the person reoffended

after release?
A

17

I do not know.
MR. SHERMAN:

I would like to mark as

18

Hoffman Exhibit 13, confidential, and this is

19

document Bates numbered 12 through 17.

20

(Hoffman Confidential Deposition

21

Exhibit Number 13 was marked for

22

identification.)

23
24
25

BY MR. SHERMAN:
Q

Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with

this document?
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 86
1

individuals were released at the same time, the

2

two that we intercepted.

3
4

Q

And CBP picked up the -- both

individuals at around the same time?

5

A

Yes.

6

Q

And was this person returned to Mexico

7

That's my understanding.

as well?

8

A

This person was returned to Mexico.

9

Q

Can I turn your attention to paragraph

10

15 of your declaration, which is Exhibit 10.

11

A

Paragraph 15?

12

Q

Yes.

13

A

Okay.

14

Q

Are the documents that are marked

15

Exhibits 11, 12, 13 and 14 the documents that you

16

believe support your allegations in paragraph 15?

17

A

You said 11, 12, 13, 14?

18

Q

That's correct.

19

A

Yes.

20
21

They support part of the

allegations.
Q

Are there any other instance that you

22

would identify to support your allegations in

23

paragraph 15?

24
25

A

Yes.

Also in the Los Angeles area,

there were four individuals released and the only
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 87
1

reason we knew they were released is they showed

2

up to our deferred inspection office looking for

3

their documents.

4
5

Q

And what circumstances were those?

What were the -- let me step back.

6

What were the -- let's go one by one.

7

For the first one, under what

8

circumstances did CBP come in contact with the

9

person?

10

A

Under the first?

11

Q

You said there were four other

12

circumstances, correct?

13

A

Correct.

14

Q

So let's go one by one.

So for the

15

first of those circumstances, when did CBP come in

16

contact with the person?

17

A

I don't have the specific dates and

18

times in which they presented themself to the

19

deferred inspection office.

20

aware of is that, you know, we had a detainer

21

against these individuals.

22

from custody and then they went to deferred

23

inspection looking for their documents that we

24

retained during the proceeding.

25

became aware that they were released.
212-279-9424

The only thing I'm

They were released

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

And that's how we

212-490-3430

Page 88
1
2

Q

And do you know when these incidents

occurred?

3

A

Not off the top of my head.

4

Q

Were they before January 2018?

5

A

I believe they were, but I'm not

6

exactly certain, but I think they were sometime in

7

2017.

8
9
10
11

Q

Do you know if any of these persons had

a criminal history?
A

They had -- obviously, they had

criminal records.

That's why we turned them over.

12

Q

Do you know --

13

A

I believe grand theft, burglary,

14
15
16
17
18
19

assault.
Q

Do you know if they had any criminal

convictions?
A
or not.
Q

I'm not aware if they had convictions
I don't have that level of detail.
And then when they came -- and can you

20

describe a little bit the circumstances in which

21

they came back to CBP?

22

A

I'm not -- I don't know the specific

23

circumstances, but the process, again, in my

24

experience in LA where these occurred is if we

25

have a criminal alien, we will parole them in.
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

We

212-490-3430

Page 89
1

will issue a detainer, the 247, and then we will

2

order a deferred inspection.

3

keep their entry documents and those would be

4

forwarded to their deferred inspection offices

5

downtown LA at the federal building.

6

where we keep the information, keep the record,

7

because deferred inspection officers help handle

8

the back end of the case.

9

And that's -- we

And that's

If they were called, the field

10

inspection officers would be the officers that

11

would go effectuate the transfer, in this

12

situation, and take custody of those individuals,

13

but since they were released, the individuals then

14

came to us looking for their documents.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Q

So they came to the deferred inspection

office?
A

They came to the deferred inspection

office.
Q

And at that time, what happened with

these -A

I'm not exactly sure what happened, but

22

they should have all been taken into custody and

23

removed.

24
25

Q

So other than Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14

and these four instances, are there any other
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 90
1

incidence that you would identify to support your

2

allegations in paragraph 15?

3
4

A

In paragraph 15, no, I don't believe

so.

5

MR. SHERMAN:

I would like to identify

6

as Hoffman Confidential Exhibit 15 the document

7

that's Bates numbered 27 to 32.

8

(Hoffman Confidential Deposition

9

Exhibit Number 15 was marked for

10
11
12
13

identification.)
BY MR. SHERMAN:
Q

Officer Hoffman, are you familiar with

this document?

14

A

Yes.

15

Q

What is this document?

16

A

Well, this is essentially the secondary

17

case, the secondary referral form, and then a

18

withdraw of application form.

19
20

Q

Was this person transferred to a law

enforcement agency within California?

21

A

This individual was not transferred.

22

Q

Why was that?

23

A

Because, in this case, the LAWA police

24

department did not honor the detainer.

25

not take possession of the individual.
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

They did

212-490-3430

Page 99
1

A

Not for Los Angeles County.

2

Q

For any other jurisdiction in

3

California?

4

A

Again, only to the degree it relates to

5

San Diego County or San Diego area where

6

previously discussed they were refusing five to

7

six criminal aliens on average a month and not

8

turning them over to the state and local agencies.

9

Q

And is -- since January 2018, has CBP

10

attempted to transfer person -- individuals who --

11

who there's an active warrant to Los Angeles law

12

enforcement?

13

A

I'm not sure I have that information.

14

Q

How about any other jurisdictions in

15

California, CBP transferring those -- attempting

16

to transfer those individuals to local law

17

enforcement --

18
19
20

A

I don't have direct knowledge.

So it's

difficult for me to answer.
Q

Can you turn to paragraph 21 of your

21

declaration.

22

impact on OFO's ability to execute submissions at

23

point of entries in California?

24
25

A

How has SB 54 had a significant

Well, again, just fundamentally, I

think it's probably the eight cases that we
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 103
1
2

system, people should see their day in court.
Q

And has that -- has that --

3

consideration of the charges, has that changed

4

because of SB 54?

5

A

No.

I mean, I think we're in

6

discussions now as SB 54 evolves.

We're still

7

relatively new into it here is what this is going

8

to look like.

9

at the field level at the discretion of the

Again, it's really taking place now

10

various field leadership in those locations and

11

we're trying to find out, you know, determine what

12

we might want to do at a national level to assist

13

and to be a little more consistent.

14

Q

And I just want to clarify when you

15

were referring to Imperial County.

16

was Imperial County not complying with detainer

17

requests?

18

A

Yeah.

Before SB 54,

The two cases I believe we

19

openly discussed, unless I'm mistaken, was the

20

October and December prior.

21

if we discussed them or not.

22

discuss them.

23

County in October and December whereby -- the same

24

jail where two individuals were released without

25

prior notification.
212-279-9424

Maybe -- I'm not sure
Maybe we didn't

But there are two cases in Imperial

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Page 108
1

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2

I, Denise M. Brunet, the officer before

3

whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby

4

certify that the witness whose testimony appears

5

in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me;

6

that the testimony of said witness was taken by me

7

in stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting

8

under my direction; that said deposition is a true

9

record of the testimony given by said witness;

10

that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor

11

employed by any of the parties to the action in

12

which this deposition was taken; and, further,

13

that I am not a relative or employee of any

14

counsel or attorney employed by the parties

15

hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in

16

the outcome of this action.

17
18

<%Signature%>
Denise M. Brunet

19

Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia

20
21
22
My commission expires:
23

December 14, 2022

24
25
212-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

212-490-3430

Pa ge 109
ACKNOWLED GMENT OF DEPONENT

1
2

3

I

hereby declare under penalty of perjury

4

that I

have read the foregoing transcript of my

5

d eposition and e x cept for any c o rr ections o r

6

changes noted on the errata sheet ,

7

subscribe to the transcript as an accurate

8

record of the statements made by me .

I

hereby

9

10
11
12

TODD A .

HOFFMAN

13
14
15

DATE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

2 12-279-9424

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

2 12-490-3430

Page 110
E R R A T A

1
2

IN RE:

U.S.A . vs.

3

DATE:

4/12/2018

4

PAGE

LINE

5

\'3

6

1\

7

-~ 16

15
10
\9

S H E E T

8

5

9

10

·(Q
i

11

l]

12
13
14

3q

~lo.

17

Lt(a

21
22
23

24
25

•

l....:

1'

..J

11 •

L

,

unm(}fQDLQ .

r

l \Q(uuIT .. .l A )
...1.
,Jt,J

re,mo'>L€., ' oaf' l';yro3CW>rncal fcoT)
Ch°'¥}€, 1\,D,tl) v-X:\~\" \:D ' ths,~(Mfil')( (~~Jtf11' Ce(/
c.hcfi82. \::u '1<1 IO\- ct avf d Q h1 Cl)Ynf) -vmr)
TEC&\, (\~\?08D:J9}),c ol e@r)
1

mm

~
1>

3~

16

20

{:.lJ\9fil~un Sbc,a\u ,~

:\

I

32

-1}_

19

CORRECTION AND REASON

1\
1-: 1

15

18

5 J

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

_lfu__

Y9

~q_

5t)_
5\

io
\1

~3

25
1

_1__
Co

\I

1#7' ---- ~
(DATE)

212-279-9424

TODD A.

,?- ------

Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

HOFFMAN

212-490-3430

Page 111
1

S H E E T

E R R A T A

2

IN RE:

U.S . A . vs.

3

DATE:
PAGE

LINE

5

5:l

N U E D

4/12/2018

4

C O N T I

6
7

Cao

G\

7

\ '9

13

8

(~L\

9

(,g~

10

"71

7(9

12

:b]

\:t,

gy

\(u

CORRECTION AND REASON

ch~

/I vJ

}aj' ·o ('IV h,lg,, c~'20,~ C(a 1 tmf'
r
(~'y),'

( boo~ . Clf\d ' m 0:c/ (hp cre[Wbicc,) :£XXDf"J
11

11

,.

)\ ru ,.

lS

11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

R

15

\00

16

\()0

17

\0\

18

\ C) \

19

\O
l

l\

\i

\9

G

I Li
'lLJ

i:::i

0

15

l

Che~, ''tbeknc8~1' ro ''fukn}e\vfhl~Pif/f~'·wt

Cb(ll)9Q ' c€n1~ C\h)f' \--p ' [fmDJ a\'' (\o <
,
~n:ect ,o\
o..<ld 11 1·~' Qt \::\[ s.e cood II tb,I>,, li)j~opn1ce }{NYOr)
\ , r)

\
a \ a JjP~CCpb, , aiI
J
WQl\g-ej "\:bw-\:'' tu 11±b!fc:lJi> (hjpDLJJJ{)n' c<:tf ~r)
chcn9£, '%f,r '' ru ·ru.. U
t
~p~f c
pb,<a l trr)tf
hm~. "i ro p,JC )on \-' n> ' ·i .rfuaM d (ncPYYf et vr~)

cul{\tf,
IA ,.

,,

, \A,.. ,,
\A) 1TJ'

L-..

, u

II

"

( L

•

1
"'

i\

11

<;.

20

23

24

25

(DATE)
2 12-279-9424

)

TODD A . HOFFMAN
Veritext Legal Solutions
www.veritext.com

2 12-490-3430

EXHIBIT F
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT G
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT H
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT I
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT J

Alameda County Sheriff's Office

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php

Home
Quick Links
Agency Divisions
Careers
Regional Training Center
Contact

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
[phone]

Bail, Booking and Release Information

Charges, custody status, court dates, bail amounts, release dates and other inmate information can be obtained 24 hours a day, seven days a
week by calling 1-925-551-6500. You must have the inmate's name, PFN (Person File Number), or correct date of birth before obtaining
information.
Bail can be posted in the Santa Rita Jail lobby 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Inmates who are determined to be eligible for release, will be released as quickly as possible. However, this procedure can take up to
several hours. It is recommended that you wait until receiving a telephone call from the released inmate before coming to the jail.
Inmates granted release while at court must return to the jail to complete all necessary paperwork. The inmate will receive all
personal property and be released from the jail facility.
Inmates being released who are indigent, have inadequate clothing for climatic conditions, do not have clothing available at the time
of release, or who can no longer fit into their clothing, will be provided appropriate welfare clothing.
Inmates who have no money upon release are given a free bus passe or a free B.A.R.T. ticket. The inmates are also provided with
transportation schedules and directions to the B.A.R.T. station if they choose to walk.
Pending Release: Once jail staff have determined an inmate may be eligible for release from custody, the inmate is identified as a “pending
release” and the release process is initiated. The release process is a multistep administrative process that may take several hours to
complete. During this process, a search of law enforcement databases is conducted to determine if the inmate has any outstanding warrants
and/or holds that may prevent their release from custody. Should any other legal holding authority be located during this process, the inmate
will not be released from custody and the inmate will no longer appear as a “Pending Release.”
Expected (EXP)Release Date: Is the date a sentenced inmate will have completed serving time on that specific case, provided no penalties
for misbehavior are incurred, no other cases are sentenced to additional jail time and/or no other pending un-sentenced cases are located.
Prior to an inmate’s release from custody, the inmate will begin the initial release process as described above and the inmate will appear as a
“Pending Release.” Inmates with pending local cases, warrants or holds from other jurisdictions will not necessarily be released on the Exp.
Release Date.

Emergencies

Inmate Services handles all outside emergencies ( please refer to the Inmate Services section ). You can reach the Inmate Services Section at
[phone], Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., excluding holidays.
Santa Rita Jail after hours emergency number: [phone]

1 of 9

5/1/2018, 8:08 PM

Alameda County Sheriff's Office

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php

Mail Procedures
MAILING

ADDRESS

Santa Rita Jail
Inmate's name and PFN#
5325 Broder Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Incoming Mail
Mail will be distributed daily (Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays). Mail will be delivered only to the
addressee.
Incoming mail MUST have the inmate's name AND PFN.
Incoming mail MUST have the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope.
All mail sent to, or from, any inmate may be opened and inspected by jail staff outside the presence of the inmate involved (except
legal mail).
Incoming mail with any perceived bio-hazard (i.e. lipstick, gloss, perfume/cologne, etc) shall be returned to sender.
Envelopes and letters containing address labels, stickers, tape, glued surface (homemade cards) shall be returned to sender.
Items which are considered contraband and will cause the mail to be returned to the sender are envelopes, stamps, and writing
materials.
Sexually explicit drawings on the outside of mailing envelopes will cause U.S. Postal authorities to return the envelope to sender.
Incoming mail from attorneys or governmental officials will be opened by the jail staff in the presence of the inmate involved.
Money may be sent by MONEY ORDER or CASHIER'S CHECK ONLY. Personal checks and cash will be returned to sender
(refer to money section).
Reading Materials
NEW Books and Magazines (Limit of six (6) per day) are allowed to receive through the mail (NO HARDBACK BOOKS
ALLOWED) - PROVIDED THESE ITEMS ARE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER OR "ON LINE"
BOOKSTORE, such as Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.com, etc. On-line bookstore must have a legitimate website that is
verifiable and allows consumers to order directly. Any website that re-directs to another website for ordering is not accepted.
PACKAGES MUST BE PROFESSIONALLY LABELED and recognized as an on-line bookstore. Books from private sellers will
be returned.
Envelopes, magazines, and periodicals sent to inmates may not exceed 8-1/2" x 14". Any mail exceeding this size will be returned to
sender.
Inmate newspaper subscriptions must be made directly to the newspaper company by a third party. Cancellation or change of address
for subscriptions must be made directly to the newspaper company. Newspapers will then be distributed through regular mail
channels. Weekend and Holiday newspapers will be distributed the next working day. Newspapers for inmates no longer in custody
will be disposed of by the mail room staff. (Each housing unit receives six daily Tribune newspapers, paid for by the Inmate Welfare
Fund).
Photographs
Photographs may not be larger than 4" x 6".
A maximum of ten (10) photographs may be mailed to inmates in an envelope at a time.
Polaroid and negative photographs are not accepted.
Photographs that are altered or blacked out in any manner shall be returned to sender.
Photographs or pictures that are pornographic, nude, suggestive, showing gangs, gang tattoos, or hand gestures (signs) are not
allowed.

Money

The Alameda County Sheriff's Office takes pride in the services provided to inmates; including meals, library services and inmate programs.
In addition, the Sheriff's Office provides the opportunity for inmates to purchase additional items such as snacks, soups, drinks, stationary,
hygiene supplies, medicines, and specialty items for women, to name a few. All proceeds from the sale of these items go directly to the
Inmate Welfare Fund. This fund is used to support the numerous programs offered to inmates, as well as the televisions, games, recreational
supplies, etc.
PLEASE FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE:
Deposits may be made by mail or in person. Only cash or money orders will be accepted for deposits on inmates accounts' (NO
PERSONAL, PAYROLL, TAX REFUND OR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS OR COINS). Do not send cash through the mail.
If depositing money in person, you must have the exact amount. NO CHANGE WILL BE GIVEN. If you have been an inmate within
the last six months, you may not deposit money on another inmate's account.

2 of 9

5/1/2018, 8:08 PM

Alameda County Sheriff's Office

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php

Visitors must produce valid photo identification (driver's license, military, etc.) and have the inmate's PFN before depositing money
on the inmate's account.
Money orders must be made out as follows:
The Alameda County Sheriff's Office (ACSO)
c/o Inmate's Name and PFN
HOURS FOR MONEY DEPOSITS
Seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Although you may deposit money 24 hours a day, it is recommended you do so during normal lobby
hours from 8:00am to 6:30pm.

Property

Property releases and clothing exchange transactions will be accepted 24 hours a day at the Santa Rita Jail ( SRJ ).
Property Release requests forms must be submitted by the inmate and received by lobby personnel prior to the day the visitor will be
picking up the property. This usually takes up to 7 working days at SRJ.
It is required that you provide photo identification when receiving the released property. It is recommended that you call the lobby to ensure
the property is ready for pick-up.
Santa Rita Jail: [phone]
Court clothing for inmates will only be accepted at the Lobby within 72 hours of a jury trial, preliminary examination, or if a Court Order
has been received. You may only bring a maximum of two sets of clothing. The clothing in the inmate's property must be taken during the
exchange. Clothing is exchanged on a one-for-one basis.
All medications are provided to inmates through Prison Health Services. Lobby personnel will accept prescription glasses, dentures and
contact lenses solution in sealed packages. It is recommended that you coordinate with Prison Health Services prior to leaving items in the
lobby [phone].

Telephone Calls

Pay phones are available to all inmates daily. However, inmates can only make collect telephone calls.
In order to eliminate problems associated with 3-way calling, the telephone system in use automatically terminates the call if an
attempt is made to connect a third party.
If you have call waiting, be advised the telephone system in use may terminate your call if the call waiting "click" is heard. The
system cannot differentiate between the call waiting "click" and the 3-way calling "click".
Private citizens can prevent collect calls by having a BLOCK put on their personal phone line. This can be done by contacting your
local telephone company.

Vehicle Impoundment

If a vehicle was impounded upon arrest, you will need to contact the arresting police agency to determine the documentation needed for the
release of the vehicle. It is often necessary to provide a written letter from the registered owner authorizing the release of the vehicle.
Inmates can release keys to the vehicle, by simply filling out a property release request form. Keys must be picked up in the lobby of the jail
in which the inmate is being housed. It is recommended that you call the jail lobby to ensure the keys are ready for pick-up.
** Santa Rita Jail Facility [phone] **

Visiting

Please refer to the Santa Rita Jail Visiting page.

Santa Rita Jail Facts

The original Santa Rita Jail opened in January 1947. It served as a replacement for the original County Prison Farm that operated on 275
acres next to Fairmont Hospital in San Leandro. The old Santa Rita Jail encompassed about 1000 acres of a World War II military base
known as Camp Schumacher that was adjacent to the existing site of the Camp Parks Reserve Training Center. The original site included a
Navy Brig that was converted into a maximum-security facility known as Greystone. A wire-enclosed complex of eight barracks was
converted into a minimum and medium security facility that was known as the Compound. Women were housed in a horseshoe shaped
barracks known as Women's Quarters.
Over time, the Santa Rita Jail became overcrowded and the changing demographics of the jail population made it difficult and costly to
operate the aging facility in a safe and secure manner. In 1983 Design and development of the "new" Santa Rita began. Construction costs
of the new Santa Rita Jail totaled about $172 million. State bonds augmented by matching local funds made the project possible. On
September 1, 1989, Sheriff Charles C. Plummer gave the order to open the facility and inmates were transferred from the old to the new jail.

The New Santa Rita Jail

The facility holds about 4000 inmates housed in one of eighteen modern housing units. It is considered a "mega-jail" and ranks as the third

3 of 9

5/1/2018, 8:08 PM

Alameda County Sheriff's Office

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/dc_srj.php

largest facility in California and the fifth largest in the nation. Santa Rita is accredited by the American Correctional Association, thus
making it the only facility in California holding this prestigious award.
It is recognized as one of the most technologically innovative jails in the world. A robotic system speeds delivery of laundry, supplies and
food to all areas of the 113-acre campus. State-of-the-art criminal justice systems serve the internal operation while the largest rooftop solar
power system converts enough electricity to power nearly one-half of the facilities electrical needs during daylight hours.
Sheriff Ahern's philosophy of cost-effective delivery of services is reflected in the private sector partnerships that support the jail's
operation. A modem cook-chill food service operation produces 12,000 economical meals per day. On site medical and mental health
services saves money while reducing the patient load at county medical facilities.
Throughout its history, the Santa Rita Jail Facility has served the criminal justice system and contributed to the safety of the citizen of the
County of Alameda by providing a safe, secure and humane environment for inmates and staff.

Home

About Us
Disclaimer
Mission Statement
Privacy Policy

Quick Links

Most Wanted
ACSO Retiree's
Adopt a Pet
Alarm Program
Anonymous Tip
CCW License
Community Events
Deputy Sheriffs' Association
"2.1.1" Eden I & R
Forms
Glenn Dyer Jail Visiting
Inmate Locator
Jenny Lin Murder Investigation
My Care Pack
Operation My Home Town Food Hub Project
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
Santa Rita Jail Visiting
SB 34 ALPR
SB 741 Cellular Interception
SB 741 DA's Cellular Interception Policy
Sheriff's Sales
Text to 911
VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday)
Youth and Family Services

Agency Divisions

Sheriff's Administration
Agency Watch Commander
Countywide Services
Detention and Corrections
Eden Township Division
Law Enforcement Services
Management Services
Urban Area Security

Careers

4 of 9

5/1/2018, 8:08 PM

EXHIBIT K

Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ...

https ://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/arc hi ves/2018/04/0 3/al ...

Login/ CreateAcrom1t

OAKLAND, BERKELEY, AND EAST BAY NEWS, EVENTS, RESTAURANTS, MUSIC, & ARTS

News

Archives I RSS

SUBSCRIBE

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018

Alameda County Sheriff's Decision to Make Inmate
Release Dates Public Stirs Concern Among Immigrant
Rights Advocates
By o,mvtn 8onc/Gr,1twn
Email

Tweet

Print
dick to enlarge

ALAMEDA COUNlY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FACEBOOK

Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern.

The Alameda County Sheriffs Office recently instituted a new
policy of making the release dates of inmates from county jails
public on its "inmate locator" website. The move coincides with
similar steps taken by the Orange County Sheriffs Office last
month to publish inmate release dates as a means of
circumventing the state "sanctuary" law, SB 54.
But unlike Orange County, where the sheriff said it's their
intention to help federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agents, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office said today that their
decision to make release dates public isn't about working with
ICE.
"It's part of a broader purpose of being transparent," said Sgt.
Ray l<elly.
Immigrant rights advocates, however, question the timing of the
move.
"This is really problematic that this Implementation is happening
now," said Yadira Sanchez of the California Immigrant Youth
Justice Alliance. "It's a further Indication that Sheriff Ahern and
his department are continuing to side with the Trump

I of 4

5/2/2018, 12:11 PM

Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ...

https ://www.eastbayexpress.co~/SevenDays/archi ves/2018/04/0 3/al ...

administration and [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions, and they're
seizing the moment to collaborate with ICE."
According to l<elly, release date information for inmates at the
county's Santa Rita Jail in Dublin and Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland
have always been available to the public, but requestors had to
call the jail. Now the information can be accessed online. Kelly
said the move Is in step with the state public records law and
recent case law promoting the use of technology to allow faster
access to information. It's also less work for sheriff's office
employees who don't have to answer the phones.
Unlike Orange County and the Contra Costa Sheriff's Office which also recently decided to make release dates public - the
Alameda County Sheriff's website doesn't list all of the currently
incarcerated people along with their release dates in one
document. Instead, users of the system still need to know the
name of a person who is detained in the jail before obtaining
their information.
dick to enlarge

A screen shot of an inmate's record [redacted] showing their
expected release date.
Kelly couldn't say when release dates were added, but the feature
was approved recently and went live earlier this year.
SB 54 was passed last year and restricts local law enforcement
from sharing Information with ICE. The law drew opposition from
the California State Sheriffs Association, of which Ahern is a
member.
"It's a true concern for the Immigrant community and
undocumented people," said Sanchez. "Even though the release
of information is in a slightly different form, they're still targeting
immigrants. They're seizing the moment to collaborate with ICE."
l<elly disagreed and said the new feature isn't likely to provide ICE
agents with much assistance. "It's not to bolster ICE, or make
their job easier or better," he said.
But Jon Rodney with the California Immigrant Polley Center said
the Alameda County Sheriff's decision could help immigration
agents and is the wrong step for the operator of the county's
Jails. "Immigrants are a vital part of California, and Californians
believe in compassion and equality, and we need from every
county sheriff and elected officials to defend those values and
not attack them," he said.
Kelly acknowledged that the move may not be well timed given
the Orange County Sheriff's very public denunciation of the state
sanctuary laws at a press confe re nee last week.

2 of 4

5/2/2018, 12:11 PM

Alameda County Sheriffs Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ...

https ://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archi ves/2018/04/0 3I al. ..

When announcing his agency's decision to make inmate release
dates public last week, Orange County Undersheriff Don Barnes
told the press, "this is in response to SB-54 limiting our ability to
communicate with federal authorities and our concern that
criminals are being released to the street."
"We know that's going to be said. This is very untimely for this to
happen," said Kelly.

I Wednesday's Briefing: Low-Inca ...

« Tuesday's Briefing: EPA to Rev ...

»

COMMENTS
add a comment

Showing 1 -1 of 1

Subscribe to this thread:

By Email

With RSS
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Anonymous and pseudonymous comments will be removed.
Subscribe to this thread

Post Comment

MOST POPULAR STORIES
VIEWED

SHARED

COMMENTED

VIDEOS

Oakland Elections: Cat Brooks Jumps
in Mayor's Race
Plus, contests for two council seats become
crowded.

Wednesday's Briefing: People's Park
May Be Turned into Housing;
Oakland to Require Public Approval
of Surveillance Tools
Tuesday's Briefing: Gas Tax Repeal
May Be Headed to Ballot; New
Shopping Center Opens in East
Oakland
Monday's Briefing: Judge Said Desley
Brooks Lied Under Oath; Head of
Alameda Firefighters Union Seeks

$ 2 001< from City
Best Of Nomination Voting Is Now
Live!
Vote for your favorite East Bay businesses
and people.

RECENT ISSUES
Apr25,2018

3 of 4

AprlB,2018

Aprll.2018

5/2/2018, 12:11 PM

Alameda County Sheriff's Decision to Make Inmate Release Dates Pu ...

Apr 4, 2018

Mar 28, 2018

https ://www. eastbay express. com/Seven Days/arc hi ves/2018/04/03/al. ..

Mar 21, 2018

MORE ISSUES»

BEST OF THE EAST BAY
2017

OTHER YEARS

Best Of Nominees

2016

Best of the East Bay
2017

2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001

4 of 4

5/2/2018, 12:11 PM

EXHIBIT L

REDACTION AND PRIVILEGE LOG - UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA, et al., 1:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN (E.D. CAL.)
Bates #

Declaration
Paragraph

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42
000058 - 59

Document
Title/Subject

Source/From:

Crimes of Arrest For N/A
San Diego, list of
specific crimes and
aliens arrested for
them

Recipient/To: and
CC:

Date

Disposition

Description of Redacted Material

Privilege(s)

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Throughout document: Identifying
number assigned by another federal
law enforcement agency, disclosure of
which could compromise ongoing law
enforcement activities by that agency.
First Redaction: Name of person who
printed e-mail chain - no direct
involvement in case example. Second
Redaction: Recommendation for
handling future criminal warrant cases.
First Redaction: Internal questions and
discussion about handling immigration
case and case history. Second
Redaction: Attorney notes regarding
immiration case litigation.
First Redaction: Internal discussion of
techniques/plan for effectuating arrest.
Second Redaction: Name of Law
Enforcment Agent of Officer. Third
Redaction: Internal discussion
regarding recommendation for
handling future cases generally.
Throughout document: Identifying
number assigned by another federal
law enforcement agency, disclosure of
which could compromise ongoing law
enforcement activities by that agency.
Throughout document: Three columns
labeled Case Notes, FBI #, and Special
Instructions. Case Notes and Special
Information columns contain officer
notes, potential arrest plans or dates,
times, locations of potential future
arrest opportunity. FBI # contains
identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency.

Law Enforcment Privilege;
Third Agency Information

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000060

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000061

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42
PART 2
000064

Email chain
discussing case
example

Ziegler, Douglas

Hamelin, Scott;
Linscott, John;
Greene, Joseph;
Gross, Paul

Jan. 6, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000066

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 42
000463 - 512
PART 3

N/A
ERO San Diego
Tracker for Detainers
Not Honored

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Not Responsive; Deliberative
Process

Deliberative Process; Attorney
Work Product

Law Enforcement; Deliberative
Process

Third Agency Information

Law Enforcement, Deliberative
Process; Third Agency
Information

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44a
000067, 69, 70, 80, 81

Selected Pages:
EARM Search
Results

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44a
000071 -79
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000084

Crimional History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Sept. 25, 2017

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44b
000090, 96-97, 10102, 119-20, 122-23,
127-28, 132-33, 13743

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44b
000103 - 17
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000091 - 92

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Form I-213

N/A

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000088-89

Paragraph 44a PART 2

Paragraph 44b
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000094

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Produced with
Redactions

Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Throughout document: Identifying
number assigned by another federal
law enforcement agency, disclosure of
which could compromise ongoing law
enforcement activities by that agency.
Throughout pages: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Two Redactions: Identifying number
assigned by another federal law
enforcement agency, disclosure of
which could compromise ongoing law
enforcement activities by that agency.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.

Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44c
000147, 151-52, 16671

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44c
000153-62
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000163-64

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Form I-213

N/A

Paragraph 44c

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000165
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000179, 184-86, 19295

Paragraph 44d

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000193
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44d
000187-91
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000180

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000182
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000183

Paragraph 44d

Criminal History
Record

N/A

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Feb. 25, 2018

Produced Redacted
in Full

Produced with
Redactions

Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Two Redactions: Identifying number
assigned by another federal law
enforcement agency, disclosure of
which could compromise ongoing law
enforcement activities by that agency.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Discussion of attorney advice.

Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Attorney-Client

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44e
000198, 214-15

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44e
000206-11
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000212

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Form I-213

N/A

Paragraph 44e

N/A

Mar. 8, 2012

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000213
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f
000221-22

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f
000226-28

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Sept. 26, 2016 Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f
000229-35

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
First and Second Redactions:
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.

Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information;
Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive

Third Agency Information

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44f 000236-38
PART 2

EARM Search Result N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44g
000239

EARM Search Result N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44g
000260-68
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000269

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Form I-213

N/A

Paragraph 44g

N/A

Mar. 1, 2012

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000270
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h
000278, 301-16

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.

Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h
000282

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Mar. 27, 2018 Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000298-99

Paragraph 44h

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Aug. 1, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000300
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44h
000284-97
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a
000318

Criminal History
N/A
Record
EARM Search Result N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full
Produced with
Redactions

N/A

N/A

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a
000320

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Mar. 28, 2018 Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45a
000324-27

Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.

Third Agency Information

Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Third Agency Information
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information

Third Agency Information

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000329

Paragraph 45a

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

Jun. 7, 2015

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000330-31
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b
000332, 341-49

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b
000337-40
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b
000336

Criminal History
Record
Form I-213

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full
Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45b
000343

EARM Search Result N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c
000350-51, 363-64

Selected Pages:
N/A
EARM Search Result

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Information redacted that is protected
by statute or regulation, and not used
or relied upon in declaration.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.

Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information

Protected by Regulation or
Statute, Not Responsive
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c
000353

Form I-213

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45c
000357-60
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45d
000373-78
PART 4
USvCA_Homan_Depo
000379-87

Criminal History
Record
Criminal History
Record

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full
Produced Redacted
in Full

Paragraph 45d
PART 4

EARM Search Result N/A

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

USvCA_Homan_Depo
000386

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51
000389
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 77
000513-523

CA Detention Bed
N/A
N/A
Capacity Numbers
Michael Garcia and N/A
Significant Public
Robert Bonner
Benefit Parole
Protocol for U.S. Law
Enforcement
Agencies

N/A

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000423-460

USCIS
Department of
Homeland Secuirty USCIS Central Index
System
U.S. DOJ Criminal
Office of
Division
International
Affairs

N/A

N/A

Produced with
Redactions

Homeland Security
Investigations

Dec. 1, 2017

Produced Redacted
in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000461

May 9, 2005
and Sept. 22,
2005

Produced with
Redactions
Produced with
Redactions

Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Printout from third agency database NCIC information.
Top Right and Bottom Left of Page
Redactions: Username and internal
URL for internal ICE database,
disclosure of which would reveal
various law enforcement techniques
regarding which individuals make
which decisions, have access to
systems, etc., which would permit
those seeking to evade law
enforcement to discern which
employees to target, and permit the
hacking of government systems.
Identifying number assigned by
another federal law enforcement
agency, disclosure of which could
compromise ongoing law enforcement
activities by that agency. Third and
Fourth Redactions: Information
redacted that is protected by statute or
regulation, and not used or relied upon
in declaration.
Name of person who submitted, but
did not create, the chart.
Throughout Document: Internal
descriptions, definitions, policies, and
procedures regarding the parole
process and discussion of law
enforcement techniques and
operational processes involving
paroles, definitions and descriptions of
methods known only to the agency
and/or law enforcement community
Printouts from USCIS databases used
to conduct investigative checks on any
prior immigration application history
of the potential parolee.
Request for Significant Public Benefit
Parole

Third Agency Information

Third Agency Information
Third Agency Information
Not Responsive/Internal Use
Only

Third Agency Information

Not Responsive
Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement, Third
Agency Information
Attorney Work Product

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000005
PART 2

ICE Memorandum re
Signifcant Public
Benefit Parole
ICE Memorandum re
Signifcant Public
Benefit Parole
ICE Memorandum re
Signifcant Public
Benefit Parole
Mandatory Tracking
Requirements

Brenda Nevano

Joseph Macias

Feb. 20, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

Brenda Nevano

HSI Assistant Attache Feb. 20, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

Brenda Nevano

Field Office Parole
Coordinator

Feb. 20, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

Brenda Nevano

Vaugh Ary, Renee
Baer

Feb. 20, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

DHS ICE Parole
Chronology and
Review Form
Department of
Homeland Secuirty USCIS Central Index
System
U.S. DOJ Criminal
Division

N/A

N/A

Feb. 20, 2018

Produced with
Redactions

USCIS

N/A

N/A

Produced Redacted
in Full

Office of
International
Affairs

Homeland Security
Investigations

Feb. 13, 2018

Produced Redacted
in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000053-56
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 39
000524-526

Email chain
discussing case
Email

Brenda Nevano

Crystal Williams

Feb. 20, 2018

LOS Office of
Chief Counsel

ICE OPLA

Feb. 12, 2018

Produced with
Redactions
Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 44(f)
000527

Emails

LOS Field Office

LOS Office of Chief
Counsel

Feb. 21, 2018

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45(d)
000528-533

Emails

ICE OPLA

LOS Office of Chief
Counsel

Feb. 27, 2018

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 45(d)
000534-535

Emails

ICE OPLA

LOS Office of Chief
Counsel

Feb. 27, 2018

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51
000536

Emails

ICE ERO

ICE OPLA

Mar. 5, 2018

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 51
000537-540

Emails

ICE OPLA

ICE Management and Jan. 16, 2018
Administation

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_depo Paragraph 78
000541-544

Emails

ICE OPLA

ICE HSI and DOJ
Crim

Withheld in Full

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000006
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000007
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000008
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000009
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000010 - 48
PART 2
USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 78
000049
PART 2

Jan. 17, 2018

Proposed travel itinerary of parolee
and escorting law enforcement
officials.
Proposed travel itinerary of parolee
and escorting law enforcement
officials.
Proposed travel itinerary of parolee
and escorting law enforcement
officials.
Description of potential monitoring
and tracking requirements used for
paroles.
Internal case history and routing notes.

Law Enforcement

Printouts from USCIS databases used
to conduct investigative checks on any
prior immigration application history
of the potential parolee.
Discussion of draft travel plans and
operational details of travel and
additional operational requirements
needed for further processing.
Throughout document: Proposed travel
itinerary.
Attorney communications and
summaries regarding information
contained in paragraph 39 in
anticipation of litigation.
Attorney-client e-mail discussing
summary of case in anticipation of
litigation
Attorney communications and
summaries regarding information
contained in paragraph 45 in
anticipation of litigation.
Email and attachment of attorney
communications and summaries
regarding information contained in
paragraph 45 in anticipation of
litigation.
Attorney and attorney-client
discussions and questions regarding
information to place into paragraph 51
in anticipation of litigation.
Attorney and attorney-client
discussions regarding proposed
litigation.
Attorney and attorney-client
discussions regarding parole request.

Law Enforcement, Third
Agency Information

Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Deliberative Process, Not
Responsive

Law Enforcement, Deliberative,
Third Party Information
Law Enforcement, Deliberative
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege

Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege
Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege

USvCA_Homan_Depo Paragraph 88
000545-549

Emails

ICE OPLA

ICE OPLA

Feb. 27, 2018

Withheld in Full

Attorney and attorney-client
discussions regarding proposed
litigation.

Attorney Work
Product/Attorney Client
Privilege

EXHIBIT M
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT N
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT O
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT P
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT Q
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT R
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT S
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL