University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name ACLU of San Diego v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security NS-CA-0025
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-00733 ( S.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) National Security
Special Collection Trump Administration FOIA cases
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial counties filed this lawsuit 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 ... read more >
On April 12, 2017, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial counties filed this lawsuit 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 Diego Field Office, including San Diego International Airport and the San Diego port of entry. 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 May 8, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multi-district litigation," effectively seeking to consolidate them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ACLU's response was due May 30. For the transfer motion see this case.

On May 10, the government filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a decision by the judicial panel on the multi district litigation motion. When that motion was not immediately granted, on May 12 the government filed an ex parte motion for an extension of time to respond to the plaintiffs' complaint. On May 15, the court granted the motion.

On June 30, the government answered the complaint.

On July 3, the government filed a notice of supplemental authority, noting that the Northern District of Georgia district court granted the government's motion for a temporary stay of proceedings in ACLU of Georgia v. DHS.

On Aug. 2, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied defendants' transfer motion (notice of the denial was filed on Aug. 15). On Aug. 3, Judge Lorenz denied defendants' May 10 motion to stay.

On Aug. 10, the court ordered the following briefing schedule: the Administrative Record shall be filed by Aug. 30, plaintiffs shall file any summary judgment motions by Sep. 8, defendants shall file any consolidated cross-motions for summary judgment by Sep. 22, plaintiffs shall file any opposition and/or replies to the cross-motion by Sep. 29, and defendants shall file any further replies by Oct. 6. There would be no oral argument unless requested by the court.

On Aug. 24, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties' Aug. 22 joint motion to modify the Aug. 10 briefing schedule. Any requests for an extension of time were denied for failure to show good cause. The parties filed a joint discovery plan on Sep. 13.

The parties met for a case management conference on Oct. 17 before Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. On Nov. 3, the parties filed a status report. On Nov. 6, the parties met for another case management conference. The case did not settle, and so the parties will continue with discovery and will meet again for a case management conference on June 7, 2018. The parties will fill a supplemental joint discovery plan by April 30, 2018.

The case is ongoing.

Julie Aust - 11/11/2017


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-DOJ federal government plaintiff
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 of San Diego and Imperial Counties
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
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-733 (S.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0025-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/01/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violation of the Freedom of Information Act [ECF# 1]
NS-CA-0025-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/12/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [ECF# 35]
NS-CA-0025-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Supplemental Authority [ECF# 33]
NS-CA-0025-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay [ECF# 38] (S.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0025-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Transfer [ECF# 37] (S.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0025-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Burkhardt, Jill L. Court not on record [Magistrate]
NS-CA-0025-9000
Lorenz, M. James (S.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0025-0004 | NS-CA-0025-9000
Vance, Sarah S. (E.D. La.)
NS-CA-0025-0005
Plaintiff's Lawyers Burke, Thomas R. (California)
NS-CA-0025-0003 | NS-CA-0025-9000
Ebadolahi, Mitra (New York)
NS-CA-0025-0001 | NS-CA-0025-9000
Laidman, Daniel A. (California)
NS-CA-0025-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Berns, Matthew (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0025-0002 | NS-CA-0025-9000
Patil, Chetan (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0025-0002 | NS-CA-0025-9000
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0025-0002
Robinson, Alana W. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0025-0002
Shapiro, Elizabeth J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0025-0002

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -