Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 661

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE RE PLAINTIFFS DAUGHTER re 658 Notice (Other) filed by Rahinah Ibrahim. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 10, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 06-00545 WHA

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE RE PLAINTIFF’S
DAUGHTER (DKT. NO. 658)

Defendants.
/

16
17

On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that

18

plaintiff’s daughter, a United States citizen and a witness disclosed on plaintiff’s witness list,

19

was allegedly not permitted to board her flight to the United States to attend trial. The parties

20

were ordered to investigate the allegations and provide relevant declarations and testimony. On

21

December 3, Plaintiff was told that if Raihan Mustafa Kamal, plaintiff’s daughter, wished to

22

testify at trial regarding her travel difficulties, she could.

23

On December 5, the government provided plaintiff’s counsel and the undersigned judge

24

with hard copies of the Declaration of Maureen Dugan (sealed, not filed). Plaintiff filed the

25

Declaration of Raihan Binti Mustafa Kamal (Dkt. No. 651). Plaintiff also filed a declaration

26

from herself regarding a September 2013 visa application.

27
28

On December 6, after closing statements, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding
plaintiff’s daughter’s travel difficulties. Maureen Dugan, the Deputy Executive Director, Office
of Field Operations, at the National Targeting Center testified. The government conducted a

1

direct examination, plaintiff conducted a cross-examination, the government conducted a

2

redirect, and the undersigned judge asked questions. Both parties lodged objections to questions,

3

but some of the evidentiary rules were relaxed in light of Maureen Dugan’s research (but lack of

4

direct personal knowledge) on the circumstances of plaintiff’s daughter’s travel difficulties.

5

Plaintiff requested that the evidentiary proceedings and associated declarations be included in

6

the trial record and the government objected. Plaintiff was permitted to propose findings of fact

7

and conclusions of law related to plaintiff’s daughter.

8
9

At the end of the post-trial evidentiary hearing, plaintiff was also provided an opportunity
to decide whether she wanted to reopen the trial to permit the daughter to testify. Plaintiff has
now stated that she intends to proceed on the evidence presented at trial, will not bring her

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

daughter to testify, but renews her request to include the evidentiary hearing and associated

12

declarations in the trial record (Dkt. No. 658).

13

Plaintiff’s request shall be treated as a motion. The government should respond by

14

DECEMBER 13 AT NOON, when the first round of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

15

law are due. Plaintiff may reply when responses are due on DECEMBER 20 AT NOON. Each

16

response and reply shall be no more than SEVEN PAGES over and above the existing page limits

17

and shall be separate from the main proposed findings and responses. Each shall state the

18

specific findings and counterfindings proposed based on the evidentiary hearing and associated

19

declarations without prejudice to the government’s contention that they should not be part of the

20

trial record.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
Dated: December 10, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2