University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name County of Santa Clara v. Trump IM-CA-0089
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-00574 ( N.D. Cal. )
Additional Docket(s) 3:17-cv-00485  [ 17-485 ]
3:17-cv-01535  [ 17-1535 ]
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Presidential Authority
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Attorney Organization ACLU of Northern California
Case Summary
The County of Santa Clara commenced this lawsuit on February 3, 2017 to challenge President Trump's January 25, 2017 Executive Order (EO), Executive Order 13768. The EO denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions ... read more >
The County of Santa Clara commenced this lawsuit on February 3, 2017 to challenge President Trump's January 25, 2017 Executive Order (EO), Executive Order 13768. The EO denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that resist enforcing the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies. Represented by private attorneys, the plaintiff filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, the EO purported to allow the federal government to deny the plaintiff federal funding without stipulating qualifications for being a "sanctuary jurisdiction." Further, the EO did not grant the right for judicial review or require the federal government to issue notice to such jurisdiction. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the EO violated constitutional separation of powers, the Fifth Amendment due process right, and the Tenth Amendment.

The case was reassigned on February 8 to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. However, on Feb. 10, Judge William H. Orrick signed a related case order, connecting this case with a similar one brought by the County and City of San Francisco, IM-CA-0085 in this Clearinghouse; both were assigned to him going forward.

On February 23, Santa Clara moved for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from: 1) enforcing Section 9 of the January 25 Executive Order; 2) taking any action in furtherance of any withholding or conditioning of federal funds pursuant to the EO; and 3) taking any action pursuant to the EO to declare any jurisdiction ineligible for federal funds or deprive any jurisdiction of funds already appropriated or allocated by Congress.

On March 22, many entities moved to file amici briefs in support of the plaintiff. These included the State of California; cities and counties in California and nationwide; individual sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide; technology companies in California; social service, labor, and civil rights organizations, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and local organizations in Santa Clara County; and legal scholars. The superintendent of California's public schools also filed an amicus brief.

On March 23, the defendants moved to combine oral arguments on the preliminary injunction motions in this case and in the related case City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, requesting an April 12 combined hearing. Plaintiff opposed this motion on March 24.

The plaintiff then asked the court for permission to attach four exhibits to its motion for preliminary injunction. These exhibits included recent comments by the White House Press Secretary and recently published detainer reports from ICE, all of which the plaintiff argued contained threats and policies penalizing sanctuary cities. Because of this threat, the plaintiff alleged it had standing and its case was ripe.

Substantively, the plaintiffs argued that the power to condition funds on specified action by local government employees is Congress's, not the President's. An existing statute, 8 U.S.C. §1373, forbids local and state governments from imposing a "gag rule" on their employees that purports to forbid the employees from speaking with federal immigration authorities about the immigration status of any individual. In 2016, the Obama administration had announced that several small immigration-related grant programs would, going forward, be available only to jurisdictions that certified their compliance with §1373; on April 21, 2017, the Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed this approach in a letter.

On April 25, 2017 the court entered a nationwide injunction against the EO. The court explained that the federal government had disavowed a robust reading of the EO: It explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President’s “bully pulpit” to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement. Under this interpretation, Section 9(a) applies only to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1373. This interpretation renders the Order toothless; the Government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. §1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law. Counsel disavowed any right through the Order for the Government to affect any other part of the billions of dollars in federal funds the Counties receive every year.

The court held, however, that the EO "is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing." Yet a broader reading was, Judge Orrick explained, unconstitutional: "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves." Accordingly, the court granted a preliminary injunction against any broader implementation of the order, although it emphasized that the preliminary injunction "does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. §1373, nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such." County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017).

On May 22, 2017 the defendants moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's April 25 injunction. According to the defendants, the Attorney General had issued a memorandum on the EO, specifying that the EO's Section 9(a) could only revoke federal grants administered by DOJ or DHS with grant-eligibility terms that expressly conditioned the funding on compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1373. Thus, the defendants argued that in light of this new authority, the court should reconsider the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs' claims were not justiciable and its success on the merits was unlikely. The next day, Judge Orrick granted leave to file the motion for reconsideration, which the defendants immediately did.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 7. They argued that the plaintiff lacked standing and its claims were unripe or non-justiciable. On June 16, the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 28, many organizations, including labor unions, civil rights groups, public schools, and technology companies, as well as individual sheriffs and police chiefs, moved to file amici briefs on behalf of the plaintiff. Additionally, various California cities and counties as well as various states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington) moved to file amici briefs on behalf of the plaintiff.

On July 20, Judge Orrick denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and the motion to dismiss. Finally, he concluded that the plaintiff had adequately stated a claim for declaratory relief. 2017 WL 3086064.

On August 25, Judge Orrick found State of California v. Sessions to be a related case and reassigned it to himself. That case also challenged DOJ's immigration-related conditions on law enforcement funding.

On August 30, Santa Clara and San Francisco moved for summary judgment. Santa Clara argued that EO Section 9(a) was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Consequently, Santa Clara argued, the court should permanently enjoin Section 9(a)'s implementation. The defendants, in their September 27 response, argued that the Constitution authorized their broad immigration enforcement powers as implemented in the EO and §1373. The plaintiffs replied on October 4.

On September 18, the defendants appealed, to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Orrick's April 25 preliminary injunction and July 20 order denying defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.

In the district court, Judge Orrick granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on November 20, permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) of the EO against all jurisdictions deemed as "sanctuary jurisdictions." On December 14, the defendants appealed this permanent injunction, asking the Ninth Circuit to consolidate this appeal with the other two appeals in process. The plaintiffs, for their part, asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the consolidated appeals as moot because they challenged a preliminary injunction that the permanent injunction had superseded. Eleven states filed amicus briefs supporting the defendants. However, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' request on January 4, 2018, denying all pending motions as moot.

On August 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment, but vacated and remanded for reconsideration the nationwide injunction. The panel held that the executive branch could not refuse to disperse the federal grants without congressional authorization under the Separation of Powers principle and the Spending Clause. The panel found that Congress had not so authorized, and so summary judgment was proper, but that there were no findings to support an injunction with nationwide reach. 897 F.3d 1225.

This case is ongoing back in the district court.

Virginia Weeks - 02/04/2017
Julie Aust - 02/24/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 04/14/2018
Virginia Weeks - 08/21/2018
Sichun Liu - 02/17/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Federalism
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Funding
Public assistance grants
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Sanctuary city/state
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
United States
Plaintiff Description County of Santa Clara
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU of Northern California
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief None yet
Filing Year 2017
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0085 : City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0090 : City of Richmond v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0094 : State of California v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Santa Clara County v. Donald J. Trump (Sanctuary Cities)
www.aclunc.org
Date: Mar. 1, 2017
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Federal Defunding Lawsuit
Date: Feb. 23, 2017
By: County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
5:17-cv-574 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0089-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen [ECF# 33]
IM-CA-0089-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Robert Menicocci, Director of Santa Clara Social Services Agency [ECF# 30]
IM-CA-0089-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Carl Neusel, Undersheriff of Santa Clara County [ECF# 31]
IM-CA-0089-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Laurie Smith, Sheriff of Santa Clara County [ECF# 35]
IM-CA-0089-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Dana Reed, Director of Emergency Management for the County of Santa Clara [ECF# 32]
IM-CA-0089-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County Executive Jeffrey V. Smith [ECF# 34]
IM-CA-0089-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sara H. Cody M.D., Director of Santa Clara County Public Health Department [ECF# 27]
IM-CA-0089-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
FAQs on County of Santa Clara Lawsuit Challenging Executive Order on "Sanctuary Jursidictions"
IM-CA-0089-0016.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
County of Santa Clara's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 26]
IM-CA-0089-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Paul E. Lorenz, Chief Executive Officer of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center [ECF# 28]
IM-CA-0089-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Santa Clara County Chief Operating Officer Miguel Marquez [ECF# 29]
IM-CA-0089-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Cody S. Harris in Support of County of Santa Clara's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 36]
IM-CA-0089-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Motion and Motion for Permissive Intervention of Young Women's Christian Association of Silicon Valley; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [ECF# 43]
IM-CA-0089-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 46]
IM-CA-0089-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/09/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 52]
IM-CA-0089-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff-Intervenor Young Women’s Christian Association of Silicon Valley’s Reply in Support of Motion for Permissive Intervention [ECF# 62]
IM-CA-0089-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson [ECF# 75]
IM-CA-0089-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Administrative Motion to Combine Oral Arguments on Preliminary Injunction Motions [ECF# 79]
IM-CA-0089-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Combine Oral Arguments on Preliminary Injunction Motions [ECF# 81]
IM-CA-0089-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Request for Court Approval to Supplement Record Under Local Rule 7-3(D) [ECF# 82]
IM-CA-0089-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting the County of Santa Clara's and City and County of San Francisco's Motions to Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 [ECF# 98] (250 F.Supp.3d 497) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0024.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Motion to Intervene [ECF# 109] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 112] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 113]
IM-CA-0089-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [ECF# 114]
IM-CA-0089-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Point and Authorities [ECF# 115]
IM-CA-0089-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court's Order of April 25, 2017 [ECF# 117]
IM-CA-0089-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae [ECF# 118]
IM-CA-0089-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae [ECF# 118-1]
IM-CA-0089-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 119]
IM-CA-0089-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 136]
IM-CA-0089-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff County of Santa Clara's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 138]
IM-CA-0089-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying the Government's Motions for Reconsideration and to Dismiss With Regards to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara [ECF# 145] (2017 WL 3086064) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0038.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/20/2017
County of Santa Clara's Notice of Motion and Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 151]
IM-CA-0089-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 168]
IM-CA-0089-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 182] (2017 WL 5569835) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0089-0041.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Dismiss Appeals [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-23]
IM-CA-0089-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Consolidate Appeals and Retain Existing Briefing Schedule [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-24]
IM-CA-0089-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 138] (897 F.3d 1225)
IM-CA-0089-0044.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/01/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Orrick, William Horsley III (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0024 | IM-CA-0089-0026 | IM-CA-0089-0027 | IM-CA-0089-0038 | IM-CA-0089-0041 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Amdur, Spencer (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Bayley, Edward Andrew (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Benedict, Adriana Lee (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Dineva, Ralitza (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Eliasberg, Peter J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014
Freeman, William S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Goldberg, Nicholas Samuel (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Goldstein, Danielle Luce (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Harris, Cody Shawn (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Herrera, Dennis J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0042
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Keker, John Watkins (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0001 | IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0017 | IM-CA-0089-0021 | IM-CA-0089-0022 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-0042 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Loy, John David (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Mass, Julia Harumi (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Miller, Ava R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Moreno, Catherine Eugenia (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014
Petrocelli, Michael Roland (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Purcell, Daniel Edward (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Salceda, Angelica H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Segura, Andre Ivan (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014
Segura, Andre Ivan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Serrano, Lawrence Javier (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Spiegel, Julia Blau (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031 | IM-CA-0089-0036 | IM-CA-0089-0040
Taylor, Jennifer Lee (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031 | IM-CA-0089-0036 | IM-CA-0089-0040
Van Aken, Christine (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0042
Van Nest, Robert A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
White, Lauren Gallo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-0018 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Wilensky, Julie H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Williams, James R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0001 | IM-CA-0089-0003 | IM-CA-0089-0004 | IM-CA-0089-0005 | IM-CA-0089-0006 | IM-CA-0089-0007 | IM-CA-0089-0008 | IM-CA-0089-0009 | IM-CA-0089-0010 | IM-CA-0089-0011 | IM-CA-0089-0012 | IM-CA-0089-0013 | IM-CA-0089-0017 | IM-CA-0089-0021 | IM-CA-0089-0022 | IM-CA-0089-0029 | IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0035 | IM-CA-0089-0037 | IM-CA-0089-0039 | IM-CA-0089-0042 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Wofsy, Cody H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0014 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Brasher, Andrew Lynn (Alabama) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Hinshelwood, Brad (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0043
Keller, Scott A. (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Landry, Jeff (Louisiana) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0033
Lindstrom, Aaron D. (Michigan) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Mansinghani, Mithun (Oklahoma) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Morrisey, Patrick (West Virginia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032 | IM-CA-0089-0033
Murphy, Eric Earl (Ohio) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Ou-Young, Kuang-Bao P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031 | IM-CA-0089-0036 | IM-CA-0089-0040
Rudofsky, Lee (Arkansas) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0015 | IM-CA-0089-0020 | IM-CA-0089-0028 | IM-CA-0089-0030 | IM-CA-0089-0031 | IM-CA-0089-0036 | IM-CA-0089-0040 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, James Emory Jr. (South Carolina) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Tenny, Daniel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0043
VanDyke, Lawrence (Nevada) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Other Lawyers Aguilar, Edmundo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0019
Alger, Maureen P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Artiga-Purcell, Jose Camilo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Berner, Nicole (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0028
Burrichter, Christopher S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Cotchett, Joseph W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Danitz, Brian (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Dermody, Kelly M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Fineman, Nancy L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Fritz, Kathryn J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gertner, Leo (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gewertz, Nevin M (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ghassemi-Vanni, Sheeva June (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Goodmiller, Bruce Reed (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Holloway, Amy Bisson (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0019
Johansen, Robin B. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Johnson, Veronica (Missouri) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0032
Johnson, Thomas Michael Jr. (West Virginia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Magaziner, Fred T. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
McClellan, Nathan M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
O'Leary, Ann Margaret (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Perrin, Robert Ward (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Premo, Patrick E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Prestel, Claire (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Prouty, Thomas Howard (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Purcell, Annasara Guzzo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Rhea, Meghan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Ross, Linda Margaret (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Shih, Daniel Jeffrey (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, Todd Michael (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-0019 | IM-CA-0089-9000
Smith, Deborah L. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Sommovilla, Rachel Hanna (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Srikantiah, Jayashri (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Stark, Jennifer Lori (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Summer, Alexandra P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Teshima, Darren S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Whelan, Amy E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Winner, Sonya (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000
Zimmerman, Mitchell (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0089-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -