University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name ACLU of Hawai'i v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security NS-CA-0024
Docket / Court 4:17-cv-01970 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) National Security
Special Collection Trump Administration FOIA cases
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Northern California
Case Summary
On April 10, 2017, the ACLUs of Hawai'i, Northern California, and Utah filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 ... read more >
On April 10, 2017, the ACLUs of Hawai'i, Northern California, and Utah filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection implemented President Trump's January 27 and March 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's San Francisco Field Office, including Honolulu International Airport, Kona International Airport, Salt Lake City International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and San Jose International Airport. The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Order.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders here in the San Francisco Field Office" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable."

On Apr. 10, the case was assigned to Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. On Apr. 11, the court set a case management conference for Jul. 12.

On May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multi district litigation," effectively consolidating them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response is due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case.

On May 10, the government filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the decision by the judicial panel regarding the multi district litigation. This motion hearing was set for June 14, 2017 in Oakland before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. All responses were due by May 24, 2017, and replies due by May 31, 2017.

Also on May 10, the government filed a stipulation requesting an extension of time to respond to the plaintiffs' complaint. The judge granted the stipulation the following day: a joint case management statement was due by Aug. 23, 2017, with a telephonic case management conference set for Aug. 30, 2017.

On May 24, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the government's May 10 motion to stay proceedings pending the judicial panel's decision regarding the multi district litigation. The plaintiffs argued that there are no substantial efficiencies to be gained by a stay. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued, as all records sought in the various multi district cases are local records that the government would need to provide at some point, a stay would not aid in judicial economy. On May 31, the plaintiffs opposed the defendants' consolidation motion. On the same day, the defendants replied to the response to stay all proceedings. On June 7, the court vacated the hearing on the May 10 motion to stay proceedings, and on June 22, Judge Armstrong denied the motion to stay.

On June 21 and 22, the parties filed notice of decisions in related cases. On June 26, CBP filed an answer to the complaint. The parties had until Aug. 23 to file any ADR statements.

On Aug. 2, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied defendants' transfer motion. On Aug. 14, the court granted the parties' motion to extend their ADR deadlines (to file an ADR Certification and either a Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference) to Aug. 23. On Aug. 23, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement contending that the case was not presently well-suited to ADR resolution, and requested relief from any automatic referral to ADR. The court granted this request on Aug. 25. The parties filed a joint status report on Oct. 6, noting their intent to provide the court with a full update during the telephonic case management conference on Oct. 18.

On Oct. 13, the parties filed a joint status report. On Oct. 26, the parties held a telephonic case management conference. The court requested that the government provide copies of production orders in parallel ACLU FOIA cases, which the government provided the following day.

On Nov. 3, the judge ordered that, by Nov. 16, the parties shall meet and confer about the ongoing document search, and determine a deadline. The parties did so, but noted by status report on Nov. 16 that they could not agree on a timeline or a deadline. The parties submitted alternative processing plans going forward and asked the judge to issue an order setting forth a schedule. On Nov. 27, the federal government submitted a processing update to the court.

The case is ongoing.

Julie Aust - 12/03/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
Religion discrimination
General
Racial profiling
Record-keeping
Records Disclosure
Religious programs / policies
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Watchlist
Immigration/Border
Admission - criteria
Admission - procedure
Asylum - criteria
Asylum - procedure
Border police
Refugees
Visas - criteria
Visas - procedures
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Special Case Type
Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Defendant(s) Various federal agencies
Plaintiff Description The ACLU's of Hawai'i, Northern California, and Utah
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Northern California
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing NS-TX-0004 : ACLU Foundation of Texas v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (S.D. Tex.)
NS-ME-0001 : ACLU of Maine v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (D. Me.)
NS-FL-0002 : ACLU of Florida v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (S.D. Fla.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  ACLU Files Lawsuits Demanding Local Documents on Implementation of Trump Muslim Ban
www.aclu.org
Date: Apr. 12, 2017
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:17-cv-01970 (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
NS-CA-0024-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF# 19]
NS-CA-0024-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Filing Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer to the District of Columbia for Consolidation [ECF# 20]
NS-CA-0024-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Transfer [ECF# 21]
NS-CA-0024-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Recent Decision [ECF# 24]
NS-CA-0024-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Transfer [ECF# 30] (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Request For Relief From Automatic Referral to ADR Multioption Program; Order [ECF# 37] (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Armstrong, Saundra Brown (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024-0008 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Breyer, Charles R. (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Huvelle, Ellen Segal (D.D.C.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Kaplan, Lewis A. (S.D.N.Y.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Perry, Catherine D. (E.D. Mo.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Proctor, R. David (N.D. Ala.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Vance, Sarah S. (E.D. La.)
NS-CA-0024-0006
Plaintiff's Lawyers Burke, Thomas R. (California)
NS-CA-0024-0001 | NS-CA-0024-0002 | NS-CA-0024-0003 | NS-CA-0024-0005 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Caballero, Mateo (Hawaii)
NS-CA-0024-0001 | NS-CA-0024-0003 | NS-CA-0024-0008 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Farrell, Leah M. (Utah)
NS-CA-0024-0001 | NS-CA-0024-0003 | NS-CA-0024-0008 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Lye, Linda (California)
NS-CA-0024-0001 | NS-CA-0024-0003 | NS-CA-0024-0008 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Berns, Matthew (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-0004 | NS-CA-0024-0008 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Bickford, James (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-9000
Patil, Chetan Adinath (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-0004 | NS-CA-0024-9000
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-0004
Shapiro, Elizabeth J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-0004
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0024-0004

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -