Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted an adequate search for records responsive to a multi-part request from Ariel Cervantes Anguiano, who was picked up by ICE agents in San Francisco in 2015 and faced deportation, although Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley found the agency had not yet sufficiently explained the search terms it used for several of its searches. Ruling on the agency's exemption claims, Corley ordered the agency to provide records it withheld under Exemption 5 (privileges) and some records withheld under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) for in camera review before she could make a final determination on their applicability. The agency also redacted personally-identifying information of ICE employees and third parties under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). ICE focused its search on the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations after determining ERO was the office that would have handled such a removal. Cervantes complained that ICE had improperly limited its search to ERO, but Corley sided with the agency on that issue. Cervantes also questioned why five ICE agents in San Francisco had used differing search terms. Agreeing with Cervantes here, Corley pointed out that "ICE has not shown that their responsibilities with respect to Plaintiff's apprehension or apprehension actions generally was different such that the same search terms should not be used across all their searches." Addressing Cervantes' request for training materials, she pointed out that "this request for training materials is specific to these officers and thus would not have been captured by the searches ICE did for training materials generally within the ERO Policy Library." Corley also rejected ICE's claim that Cervantes' request for policies relating to ICE agents identifying themselves as police officers was too vague. Instead, she noted that "Plaintiff's request is reasonably described such that ICE can determine without guesswork what documents would be responsive �" that is, any communications between ICE and the San Francisco Police Department which relate to ICE officers identifying themselves as police officers." Pointing out that the agency had not provided enough information for her to determine whether certain redactions were privileged under Exemption 5, she ordered the agency to provide the documents for in camera review. Challenging the agency's redactions under the privacy exemptions, Cervantes argued that CREW v. Dept of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014), supported his public interest claim in knowing how the agency had treated his arrest. Corley disagreed, noting that "Plaintiff does not suggest that there was misconduct on the part of ICE, but rather that the public has an interest in understanding how law enforcement policy is carried out. This asserted public interest is insufficient to outweigh the ICE employees' legitimate interest in keeping their names private." Cervantes asserted that the investigative techniques that ICE had withheld under Exemption 7(E) were already publicly known. Corley upheld most of the agency's Exemption 7(E) claims, agreeing with the agency's affidavit on the policy of ICE agents identifying themselves as police officers that "even if the public knows that ICE uses a particular technique, the step-by-step guide to how it is used is not widely known." However, Corley ordered the agency to submit another claim for her to review in camera because its description was too vague. She pointed out that "without even the name of the technique or any context for why this technique out of all the techniques referenced in the handbook is not commonly known, the Court lacks sufficient information to consider whether ICE properly redacted this information under Exemption 7(E)."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has now adequately explained its search for records concerning policies for interacting with local police and that it has justified one of its Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), but not the other. In her previous decision, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley had questioned the agency's use of differing search terms. This time, she noted that the agency's affidavit explained that "San Francisco Field Officers were directed to use the search terms that they reasonably believed would appear in the records they maintained. Each of the officers searched by Plaintiff's A-number, and five of the six officers searched for variants on Plaintiff's name, and four of the six searched for variants on the operation name. The Court is persuaded that discrepancies in the search terms are not material given that they were based on the officers' 'unique knowledge of the manner in which they keep their own files and the vocabulary they use.'" Turning to Exemption 7(E), Corley accepted the agency's claim as to a section that served as a refresher on Fourth Amendment issues. After reviewing the pages in camera, she agreed that they were exempt, noting that "while the public may generally know that ICE uses particular techniques, there is no dispute on this record that the step-by-step means for applying these techniques is not publicly known." But she rejected the agency's claims as to a section of the Justice Department handbook on arrest, search and seizure for immigration officers. Here, she observed that "the chapter at issue consists of three paragraphs and only provides general information regarding this law enforcement tactic and ICE has failed to show how revealing this very generalized information would assist fugitives in identifying undercover initiatives and evading apprehension."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2018-03-22	1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-12210666.). Filed byAriel Cervantes Anguiano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
2018-03-22	2	Proposed Summons. (Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
2018-03-22	3	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 4/5/2018. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
2018-03-22	4	Certificate of Interested Entities by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano (Leigh, Daniel) (Filed on 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
2018-03-26	5	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 6/14/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/21/2018 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom F, 15th Floor. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2018) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
2018-03-26	6	Summons Issued as to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2018) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
2018-03-30	7	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano re 3 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 4 Certificate of Interested Entities, 1 Complaint, 6 Summons Issued as to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 3/30/2018) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-04-04	8	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano.. (Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 4/4/2018) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
2018-04-13	9	STIPULATION Re: Extension of time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 4/13/2018) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
2018-04-16	10	CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Defendant shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 4/30/2018. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2018) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
2018-04-16	11	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 4/16/2018) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
2018-05-29	12	United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ANSWER to Complaint byUnited States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
2018-05-31	13	NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) Joint Notice (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 5/31/2018) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
2018-05-31	14	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 5/31/2018) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
2018-06-01	15	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 6/1/2018) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
2018-06-04	16	ADR Remark: The ADR Unit is in receipt of the Joint Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference filed on 5/31/2018 (ECF # 13 ) and will not schedule an ADR Phone Conference at this time. Any party may contact the ADR Unit to schedule an ADR Phone Conference, and counsel should do so promptly if the case is not resolved directly. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2018) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
2018-06-14	17	CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Initial Case Management Statement filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 6/14/2018) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
2018-06-22	18	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/21/2018. Defendant to file Motion for Summary Judgment by August 9, 2018. (Not Reported)(Time: 5 mins) Attorney for Plaintiff: Benjamin Farkas; Daniel Leigh. Attorney for Defendant: Raven Norris. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/22/2018) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
2018-08-03	19	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time for Defendant to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 8/3/2018) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
2018-08-06	20	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 19 Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant to File Motion for Summary Judgment. (ahmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2018) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
2018-08-29	21	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 8/29/2018) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
2018-08-30	22	ORDER as modified by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 21 Stipulation To Extend Time to File Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2018) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
2018-09-04	23	MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2018 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom F, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Responses due by 9/25/2018. Replies due by 10/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1-12)(Norris, Raven) (Filed on 9/4/2018) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
2018-09-25	24	CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. To all parties and counsel of record: Please take notice that the hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 23 ) currently scheduled for November 8, 2018 is continued to November 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-7(d), the briefing shall remain the same. (This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2018) Modified on 9/25/2018 (ahm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/25/2018 (ahm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2018)
2018-09-25		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing reset for 11/9/2018 at 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom F, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2018) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
2018-09-25	25	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) and CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel H. Leigh, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F-Part 1 of 4, # 8 Exhibit F-Part 2 of 4, # 9 Exhibit F-Part 3 of 4, # 10 Exhibit F-Part 4 of 4, # 11 Proposed Order)(Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 9/25/2018) Modified on 9/26/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/16/2018) (rcsS, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 3 replaced on 10/16/2018) (rcsS, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 5 replaced on 10/16/2018) (rcsS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/25/2018)
2018-10-05	26	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment ) and REPLY in Support of Defendant's 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Norris, Raven) (Filed on 10/5/2018) Modified on 10/11/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/05/2018)
2018-10-11	27	EXHIBITS re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment/Corrected Exhibit A to Declaration of Daniel H. Leigh iso Pltf's Opposition to MSJ and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment: CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [25-2], [25-3], and [25-5]. filed by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibit B to Declaration of Daniel H. Leigh iso Pltf's Opposition to MSJ and Cross-MSJ, # 2 Corrected Exhibit D to Declaration of Daniel H. Leigh iso Pltf's Opposition to MSJ and Cross-MSJ)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/11/2018) Modified on 10/12/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2018)
2018-10-11	28	MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document / Unopposed Motion to Remove incorrectly filed documents ecf nos. 25-2, 25-3, and 25-5 filed by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/11/2018) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
2018-10-12	29	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 28 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
2018-10-12	30	REPLY in Support (re 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed by Ariel Cervantes Anguiano. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Daniel H. Leigh, # 2 Exhibit A)(Farkas, Benjamin) (Filed on 10/12/2018) Modified on 10/15/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/12/2018)
2018-11-09	31	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Motion Hearing held on 11/9/2018 re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The motion was argued, submitted, and taken under submission. (Court Reporter: Debra Pas.)(Time 00:36) Attorneys for Plaintiff: Benjamin Farkas; Daniel Leigh. Attorney for Defendant: Raven Norris. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/9/2018) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
2018-11-13	32	ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/13/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2018) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
2018-11-29	33	NOTICE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Of Lodgment of Defendant's in camera submissions (Norris, Raven) (Filed on 11/29/2018) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
2018-12-13	34	NOTICE of Lodgement of Supplemental Declaration of Catrina Pavlik-Keenan filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Norris, Raven) (Filed on 12/13/2018) Modified on 12/16/2018 (slhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2018)
2018-12-21	35	SECOND ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/21/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
2018-12-21	36	ORDER REGARDING JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/21/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
2018-12-26	37	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION stay deadline to submit joint form of judgment unopposed filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Responses due by 12/31/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Norris, Raven) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
2018-12-26	38	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 37 Administrative Motion to stay deadline to submit joint form of judgment. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
2019-01-30	39	ORDER LIFTING STAY AND RESETTING DEADLINE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/30/2019. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
2019-02-07	40	NOTICE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement of Lodgment of Proposed Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Norris, Raven) (Filed on 2/7/2019) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
2019-02-07	41	JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/7/2019. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2019) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
Hide Docket Events