Wagafe et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 392

ORDER: This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On 7/22/2020, this Court held a telephone conference with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery disputes detailed in the parties' supplemental briefings. Dkt. ## 378 (Plaintiffs 9; supplemental briefing), 383 (Defendants' responsive briefing). Having considered the parties' briefs and oral arguments, the Court ORDERS as follows: The center of dispute between the parties is the scope of what should be pro duced from the five A-Files, and the Defendants have represented there may be thousands of pages of documents contained within the files. The Court is amenable to an in-camera review of the A-Files, and the parties are directed to meet and confer to narrow the scope of the A-File review. Based upon the parties' submission, the Court will make a final determination of whether it will take a random selection of the A-Files or review the entirety of what the parties have recommended. Th e parties have agreed to provide the narrowed scope of documents to the Court by 8/5/2020. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to subpoena third agencies as untimely. The deadlines set by the Court have passed and it will not revisit that topic. Dkt. # 280 . The Attorneys' Eyes Only Protective Orders (Dkt. ## 183 , 192 ) are sufficient and the Court is not convinced that, based upon the record, there is any reason to modify or revise what was previously approved. With respect to Defendants' clawback requests, if Defendants believe they have a basis, they need to file a motion. The Court reserves further decisions pending its decision on the requested in-camera document review. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (MW)

Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 392 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 2

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,

10
11
12
13

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United
States, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On July 22, 2020, this Court held

16

a telephone conference with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery disputes detailed

17

in the parties’ supplemental briefings. Dkt. ## 378 (Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing),

18

383 (Defendants’ responsive briefing). Having considered the parties’ briefs and oral

19

arguments, the Court ORDERS as follows:

20

(1) The center of dispute between the parties is the scope of what should be

21

produced from the five A-Files, and the Defendants have represented there

22

may be thousands of pages of documents contained within the files. The Court

23

is amenable to an in-camera review of the A-Files, and the parties are directed

24

to meet and confer to narrow the scope of the A-File review. Based upon the

25

parties’ submission, the Court will make a final determination of whether it

26

will take a random selection of the A-Files or review the entirety of what the

27

parties have recommended. The parties have agreed and stipulated that there

28

ORDER – 1

Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 392 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 2

1

are 31 policy documents. Again, the parties are directed to meet and confer to

2

provide an indication of the scope of the documents suggested for in-camera

3

review. The parties have agreed to provide the narrowed scope of documents

4

to the Court by August 5, 2020.

5

(2) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to subpoena third agencies as untimely.

6

The deadlines set by the Court have passed and it will not revisit that topic.

7

Dkt. # 280.

8

(3) The Attorneys’ Eyes Only Protective Orders (Dkt. ## 183, 192) are sufficient

9

and the Court is not convinced that, based upon the record, there is any reason

10
11
12
13
14

to modify or revise what was previously approved.
(4) With respect to Defendants’ clawback requests, if Defendants believe they
have a basis, they need to file a motion.
(5) The Court reserves further decisions pending its decision on the requested incamera document review.

15
16

Dated this 24th day of July, 2020.

A

17
18

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2