De Abadia-Peixoto et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
Filing
116
Discovery Order RE: Defendants' In Camera Document Review. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/7/2013. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2013)
1
2
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
4
5
UELIAN DE ABADIA-PEIXOTO, et al.,
Case No.: CV 11-04001 RS (KAW)
ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW
6
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
8
9
Defendants.
10
Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security submitted documents for review in
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
camera per the Court’s November 16, 2012 order. (Dkt. No. 110.) The Court has completed most
13
of its review of Defendants’ in camera submission and issues this initial order. As set forth below,
14
the Court seeks further information regarding certain documents, and orders Defendants to
15
produce certain other documents.
I. DISCUSSION
16
17
The Court discussed the deliberative process privilege in its November 16, 2012 order and
18
incorporates the discussion and analysis of the privilege in the prior order by reference. (Dkt. No.
19
110.)
Per the Court’s November 16, 2012 order, the Government submitted 17 bates stamped
20
21
documents that it had withheld from Plaintiffs on the basis of deliberative process privilege.1
22
After reviewing the documents, the Court finds that the deliberative process privilege did not
23
apply with respect to at least 10 documents because they were not both deliberative and
24
predecisional. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce the documents identified below to
25
Plaintiffs, without redaction, unless otherwise noted.
26
///
27
28
1
In response to the Court’s November 16, 2012 Order, the Government voluntarily produced
Document Nos. DHS018311-018312, so those documents will not be addressed.
1
A. Documents to be Produced
2
1. Documents summarizing ICE’s Use of Restraints policy
3
Documents Nos. 2305, 16919, 18296, 18306, and 18307 all summarize ICE’s Use of
4
Restraints policy, which was publicly released, so these documents are neither predecisional nor
5
deliberative and must be produced. In fact, the January 29, 2009 email (No. 18307) clearly states
6
that a version of the summary was provided when another non-governmental organization (NGO)
7
requested it, which would, in itself, destroy privilege.
8
2. Documents pertaining to the restraints policy for asylum seekers
9
Document No. 18314 is a “portion of message containing internal deliberations regarding
the response to UNHCR.” This document is not privileged with the exception of the first
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
sentence, which begins with “We are” and ends with “today.” This document shall be produced,
12
and the Government has the discretion to do so with that first sentence redacted.
13
While the Court will not order Document No. 18318, described as “Portion of message
14
containing internal deliberations regarding the response to UNHCR,” the Court orders the
15
Government to produce the referenced letter that it sent to UNHCR, because that document is not
16
privileged. In addition, if it has not yet done so, the Government is ordered to produce copies of
17
all final restraint policies for asylum seekers, including those that have been superseded, from
18
August 1, 2011 to present.
19
3. Other Documents
20
Document No. 18347 was purportedly withheld on the basis of deliberative process and
21
attorney work product. The rationale the Government provides in its privilege log is that it is an
22
“[e]mail message discussion conducted at the request of counsel.” The email is between Jason
23
McClay and David Jennings, and was forwarded to “ICE ERO Supervisory Detention and
24
Deportation Officers, Yakov Grinberg, Claudio McCoy, Johnny Bailey.” None of these actors are
25
attorneys, so the claimed work product privilege does not apply. Further, the contents are factual
26
in nature, as they concern the implementation of ICE’s Restraints policy as it relates to one of the
27
named plaintiffs in restraints. So even if this were subject to the qualified deliberative process
28
2
1
privilege—which it is not— this privilege could be overcome by Plaintiffs’ substantial need for
2
the document. The Government is therefore ordered to produce this document without redaction.
3
Document No. 18352 is an email that contains the name and alien number of a detainee.
4
This document was withheld on the basis of privacy. The entire contents are not privileged and
5
the Government is ordered to produce this email with the name and alien number redacted to
6
protect the detainee’s privacy.
7
8
9
B. More information required by the Government
The Government is ordered to produce additional information in camera to the Court to
assist it in making a privilege determination regarding Document Nos. 18320 and 18345.
Specifically, a copy of the final version of the August 2011 restraints policy for asylum seekers,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
including the date and time the policy was finalized.
12
13
C. Privileged Documents
After a review of all documents in camera, the Court finds that Document Nos. 18316,
14
18317, 18318, 18350, 18351, and 18353 are protected by the deliberative process privilege and
15
are not subject to disclosure. Document No. 18348 is protected by attorney-client privilege.
II. CONCLUSION
16
17
As set forth above, the Court finds that certain documents over which the Government has
18
asserted deliberative process privilege are not deliberative and predecisional, and thus, not
19
entitled to protection. Accordingly, the Government shall produce the documents identified above
20
by January 18, 2013. For those documents about which the Court seeks additional information,
21
the Government shall provide its response in camera by January 14, 2013. The Court will then
22
issue a further order concerning the remainder of the in camera production.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 7, 2013
___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?