University of Michigan Law School
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security IM-CT-0004
Docket / Court 3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )
State/Territory Connecticut
Case Type(s) Immigration
Case Summary
On December 14, 2006, attorneys and law student interns with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of the Yale Law School, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to compel the ... read more >
On December 14, 2006, attorneys and law student interns with the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization of the Yale Law School, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to compel the release of government records regarding an undercover sting operation targeting day laborers in Danbury, Connecticut. The sting, which was carried out by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security on September 19, 2006, was the subject of a separate lawsuit styled Barrera v. Boughton, case no. 3:07-cv-01436-RNC (D.Conn.). See IM-CT-0006 of this collection.

The Government eventually produced redacted versions of the requested alien files ("A files") for nine of the eleven day laborers arrested on September 19, 2006. The Government did not, however, produce records specifically relating to the September 19, 2006 raid and Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to compel production of those records. The District Court (Judge Robert N. Chatigny) denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on September 6, 2007. The case was then referred to Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez to supervise discovery.

The Government informed Plaintiffs that it located only eight pages responsive to the FOIA request relating to the September 19, 2006 raid. Plaintiffs sought discovery to determine the reasonableness of the Government's search efforts and the Government moved for a protective order to block discovery. On November 27, 2007, Magistrate Judge Martinez granted the protective order, finding that discovery was premature at that point in the case.

The Government then moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay consideration of the Government’s motion until it could conduct limited discovery. At the time of this summary, Plaintiffs’ request for a stay was still pending before the court.

On September 28, the Court (Robert N. Chatigny) approved a proposed order for settlement and dismissal, awarding Plaintiffs $16,000 and ending the case.

Dan Dalton - 02/26/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Records Disclosure
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description Local advocacy groups sought production under FOIA of immigration raid records
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing IM-CT-0006 : Barrera v. Boughton (D. Conn.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:06-cv-01992-RNC (D. Conn.) 08/07/2012
IM-CT-0004-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 12/14/2006
IM-CT-0004-0001 PDF | Detail
Press Release 09/26/2007
IM-CT-0004-0002 PDF | Detail
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order 10/24/2007
IM-CT-0004-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STIPULATION FOR COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS REGARDING FEES AND COSTS 06/03/2011
IM-CT-0004-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Order 09/28/2011 (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0004-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Chatigny, Robert N. (D. Conn.)
IM-CT-0004-0004 | IM-CT-0004-9000
Martinez, Donna F. (D. Conn.) [Magistrate]
IM-CT-0004-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Cox, Justin (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001 | IM-CT-0004-0003
Greenspan, Geri (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001 | IM-CT-0004-0003
Jonas, Stacie (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001
Lasch, Christopher Nelson (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0003 | IM-CT-0004-9000
Moshenberg, Simon (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001
Ringer, Thom (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0003
Tan, Michael (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001 | IM-CT-0004-0003
Wishnie, Michael J. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001 | IM-CT-0004-0003 | IM-CT-0004-0005 | IM-CT-0004-9000
Wizner, Stephen (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0001 | IM-CT-0004-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Morabito, Douglas P. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-0005
Perkins, Lisa E. (Connecticut)
IM-CT-0004-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -
The Clearinghouse has been generously supported by the National Science Foundation.