Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 120

ORDER Re July 31, 2012 Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/1/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-2228 EMC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE JULY 31, 2012 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

The Court held a case management conference in the instant case on July 31, 2012. This

17

order memorializes the Court’s rulings made at the conference. It also provides additional rulings

18

and/or guidance as necessary.

19

1.

Plaintiff has until August 3, 2012, (a) to return all transportation letters (sealed or

20

unsealed) in his possession, custody, or control to Defendants and (b) to provide Defendants with

21

new photographs to be used for the new transportation letters. Although Defendants indicated that

22

two new photographs would be sufficient, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to provide three new

23

photographs – i.e., one for each of the three sealed transportation letters to be issued. Plaintiff shall

24

send the above by mail (using a delivery-tracking method) to the office in Greece previously

25

identified by Defendants. See Docket No. 95 (notice). On the same day of mailing, Plaintiff shall

26

file a proof of service for the mailing, which should include a copy of the delivery-tracking

27

information. Defendants have no obligation to issue any new transportation letter unless and until

28

1

they receive the above from Plaintiff. If Defendants do not receive the mailing within a reasonable

2

timeframe, they shall immediately notify the Court.

3

2.

Defendants shall have until August 3, 2012, to provide to Plaintiff revised language

4

to be used in the new transportation letters. The Court notes that, on July 31, 2012, Defendants

5

provided revised language, see Docket No. 119 (Defs.’ Status Rep., Ex. C), but it fails to address the

6

Court’s concern as identified at the conference. As the Court stated at the conference, Defendants

7

should use language that pinpoints the specific concern of ensuring that the letters remain sealed –

8

general references to “tampering” or “material alteration” are not sufficient. The letter should be

9

specific about what to look for (e.g., opened envelope, alteration of name, dates, destination, etc.).
Defendants shall serve Plaintiff with the revised language via e-filing. By August 8, 2012, Plaintiff

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

shall file a response to Defendants’ proposed language. If Plaintiff does not agree with Defendants’

12

proposal, then he must include in his response a counter-proposal that he wishes the Court to adopt.

13

The Court shall allow Defendants to use in the transportation letters language that asks the

14

transportation company to contact USCIS or the U.S. embassy if there is evidence that the letters

15

have been opened. Similar language has been used in other transportation letters not involving

16

Plaintiff. See, e.g., Docket No. 85 (Vinet Decl., Ex. 1) (sample transportation letter); Docket No.

17

111 (Defs.’ Supp. Br., Exs. 1-2) (sample transportation letters); Docket No. 119 (Defs.’ Status Rep.,

18

Ex. A) (sample transportation letter).

19

3.

Once the Court files its order finalizing the contents of the transportation letters,

20

Plaintiff shall have one week thereafter (a) to show Aeroflot or another airline the contents to

21

confirm that he will be able to purchase a ticket with a letter containing that language and (b) to file

22

a statement indicating (i) which airline should be named in the letters; (ii) which U.S. embassy in

23

Turkey he prefers to pick up the transportation letters from; and (iii) what date he intends to pick up

24

the letters.

25

4.

Defendants shall have three sealed transportation letters and one courtesy copy

26

available for Plaintiff to pick up at the location and on the date specified by Plaintiff in the statement

27

referenced above. The courtesy copy may include markings to indicate that it is not an official

28

document. See Docket No. 88 (order). The transportation letters shall be valid for 45 days.

2

1
2

5.

After Plaintiff purchases his ticket, he must file a copy of his itinerary at least one

week before his first date of travel.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: August 1, 2012

7
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3