Hamama v.Adducci
Hamama v.Adducci
2018 WL 11361031 (E.D. Mich. 2018)
October 1, 2018
Goldsmith, Mark A., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court granted Petitioners' motion to compel, ordering Respondents ICE and DHS to answer fully and completely the interrogatories regarding the process for determining whether an Iraqi National has a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Court also ordered both ICE and DHS to supplement all interrogatory responses 3 days before any evidentiary hearing is scheduled to take place.
Additional Decisions
USAMA J. HAMAMA, et al., Petitioners,
v.
REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents
v.
REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents
Case No. 17-cv-11910
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Signed October 01, 2018
Counsel
Bonsitu A. Kitaba, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield, Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, William W. Swor, Detroit, MI, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield, Margo Schlanger, Ann Arbor, MI, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan West Michigan Regional Office, Grand Rapids, MI, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Madison Heights, MI, Nora Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Southfield, MI, Susan E. Reed, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Kalamazoo, MI, David Brian Johnson, South Haven, MI, Maria Martinez Sanchez, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner Usama J. Hamama.Bonsitu A. Kitaba, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield, Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield, Margo Schlanger, Ann Arbor, MI, Miriam J. Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan West Michigan Regional Office, Grand Rapids, MI, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid, Inc., Madison Heights, MI, Nora Youkhana, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington, Southfield, MI, Susan E. Reed, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Kalamazoo, MI, David Brian Johnson, South Haven, MI, Maria Martinez Sanchez, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioners Atheer F. Ali, Ali Al-Dilami, Habil Nissan, Jihan Asker, Moayad Jalal Barash, Sami Ismael Al-Issawi.
Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield, Ann Arbor, MI, Maria Martinez Sanchez, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner Abdulkuder Hashem Al-Shimmary.
Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield, Detroit, MI, David Brian Johnson, South Haven, MI, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield, Ann Arbor, MI, Maria Martinez Sanchez, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioners Qassim Hashem Al-Saedy, Abbas Oda Manshad Al-Sokaini.
Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Wendolyn W. Richards, Miller, Canfield, Detroit, MI, David Brian Johnson, South Haven, MI, Kimberly L. Scott, Miller, Canfield, Ann Arbor, MI, for Petitioners Mukhlis Murad, Adel Shaba, Kamiran Taymour, Jony Jarjiss, Jami Derywosh, Anwar Hamad.
August E. Flentje, Cara E. Alsterberg, William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Christina Parascandola, Joseph Darrow, Michael Celone, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation - District Court Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Jennifer L. Newby, U.S. Attorney, Defensive Litigation, Detroit, MI, Sarah S. Wilson, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Respondents Thomas Homan, John F. Kelly, Rebecca Adducci.
Cara E. Alsterberg, William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Christina Parascandola, Joseph Darrow, Michael Celone, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation - District Court Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Sarah S. Wilson, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Respondents Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, Elaine C. Duke.
Goldsmith, Mark A., United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. 403)
*1 Petitioners brought this potential discovery dispute to the Court's attention at the September 20, 2018 status conference. During the conference, Petitioners explained that they needed full and complete answers to interrogatories issued to Respondents U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively “Respondents”) on July 6, 2018 in order to prepare their reply briefs in support of their pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and entered an expedited briefing schedule directing Petitioners to file a motion to compel, if the discovery disputes did not resolve, on or before September 24, 2018, and directing the Government to file a response on or before September 28, 2018 (Dkt. 400). Petitioners' timely filed their motion to compel (Dkt. 403), and the Government has filed its response (Dkt. 410). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Petitioners' motion.
I. STANDARD OF DECISION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows for broad discovery in litigation, including “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although Rule 26 was amended in 2015 to emphasize the importance of the “proportionality” requirement, the “basic tenet that Rule 26 is to be liberally construed to permit broad discovery” remains unaltered. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Warren Chiropractic & Rehab Clinic, P.C., 315 F.R.D. 220, 222 (E.D. Mich. 2016); Martin v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 1, 5 (E.D.N.C. 2016) (“The rules of discovery, including Rule 26, are to be given broad and liberal construction.”). Relevance, in turn, “has been broadly construed to encompass any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Martin, 313 F.R.D. at 5; Tucker v. Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc., 2016 WL 8252929, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 23, 2016) (same).
When ruling on discovery-related motions, the district court has broad discretion to determine the proper scope of discovery, including whether a “discovery request is too broad and oppressive.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007); Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998).
In analyzing the present motion, the Court utilizes these principles, including specifically the Rules' heightened concern with the proportionality of discovery.
II. ANALYSIS
According to Petitioners, the parties met and conferred and resolved a number of issues, but were unable to resolve the issues raised in their motion. Therefore, Petitioners were forced to file the present motion arguing that Respondents have not fully answered numerous interrogatories issued on July 6, 2018. However, Respondents concede a number of the disputed interrogatory responses and do not address all of Petitioners' arguments, which calls into question whether Respondents met and conferred in good faith.
*2 Petitioners are seeking a Court order directing Respondents to fully answer interrogatories issued on July 6, 2018. Petitioners argue, among other things, that Respondents' objections have been waived. However, because the Court finds that all of Respondents' objections lack merit, it declines to rule on whether the objections have been waived. The Court notes that Respondents do not provide any arguments addressing Petitioners' argument that its discovery responses are insufficient. Instead, Respondents merely rely on the objections made in the interrogatory responses. The Court takes each in turn.
A. ICE Interrogatory Nos. 1(h) and 5(d)
ICE's Interrogatory No. 1(h) seeks a description of “the remaining steps in the removal process after the travel document or repatriation processes have reached an outcome, both if the document/authorization is granted and if denied.” ICE objects that to the extent Interrogatory 1(h) calls for describing minutia of scheduling flights, it has no relevance to Petitioners' Zadvydas claim. Resp. at 7. It then explains, in the broadest terms, that it coordinates with other countries and takes further steps in the event travel documents are denied. Petitioners argue that this information goes to Respondents' ability to repatriate individuals on commercial flights, which they say is plainly relevant to the Zadvydas issue. Petitioners are correct.
Under Zadvydas, after a presumptive six-month period of pre-removal incarceration has elapsed, and detainees provide “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (emphasis added). This is often referred to as “SLRRFF” test. The details of flight scheduling, in light of evidence that there have been repeated difficulties scheduling flights to Iraq and other countries, are relevant to both Petitioners' claims and Respondents' defense. The information goes directly to Respondents' ability to repatriate Iraqi nationals.
As to the broad statements that follow ICE's relevance objection, rather than appropriate responses, each sentence would serve well as a subject heading to be followed with a detailed explanation to Petitioners' Interrogatory. Petitioners are entitled to know how Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) coordinates with Iraq and other countries to complete flights, ERO's next steps if travel documents are denied, and what alternative removal options are available if there is no SLRRFF. Accordingly, objections to Interrogatory No. 1(h) are overruled.
Interrogatory 5(d) seeks identification of other versions of the Government of Iraq (“GOI”) form that ICE is “aware is sometimes or always used in the travel document or repatriation process.” Petitioners argue that ICE did not address the substance of this request. ICE refers Petitioners to its response to Interrogatory 1(b), which contains no reference to other versions of the GOI form. ICE does not respond to this argument. Based on a review of the Interrogatory, the Court agrees and orders ICE to provide an appropriate response to Interrogatory 5(d).
B. ICE Interrogatory No. 6
The parties have resolved subparts (a), (c), (e) through (p), and (s). Respondents refuse to answer subparts (b), (q), (r), and parts of (g) and (o). Respondents make no specific argument with respect to subpart (o).
1. ICE Interrogatory No. 6(b).
Subpart (b) requests that “[f]or each Iraqi National for whom Respondents have sought travel documents from the GOI since March 1, 2017, provide the ... name of the attorney representing the Iraqi National, if any.” ICE objects to this interrogatory because “it is overbroad and burdensome because it seeks to obtain information, some of which is irrelevant, that is not tracked in a statistically reportable manner and/or would require a burdensome manual search to gather the data. Furthermore, much of this data is available to class counsel through a less burdensome source – contacting their clients. Specifically, 6(b) is not tracked in ICE databases.” Petitioners argue that they are seeking specified information related to the travel document and repatriation processes. Pet'rs Mot. at 2. PageID.9533. ICE's position is untenable.
*3 At this point in the litigation, information for each Iraqi National for whom Respondents have sought travel documents from GOI since March 1, 2017 should be readily available. For those who have attorneys, those attorneys will have information related to their respective client's travel documents and repatriation process – information that is both relevant and proportional to the needs of this case.
Furthermore, the request is not overbroad or overly burdensome. The request is specific to class members who have attorneys starting from a specific date. ICE knows, or should know, which class members have attorneys and how to contact them. The burden on Petitioners is far greater than on ICE, as they would need to contact all 1,400 class members, some of whom are incarcerated, and hope they all respond. The more expeditious route is to get the information from ICE. And even if this request is somewhat burdensome on ICE, Petitioners' need for the information outweighs its burden. This objection is overruled.
2. b. ICE Interrogatory No. 6(g).
Subpart (g) requests that “[f]or each Iraqi National for whom Respondents have sought travel documents from the GOI since March 1, 2017, provide ... whether the GOI has conducted a consular interview(s) and if so the date(s) of any such consular interview(s) and the name, title, and office of each person from the Government of Iraq that conducted each interview.” ICE objects to this interrogatory because it says that it is overbroad and burdensome because it seeks to obtain information, some of which is irrelevant, that is not tracked in a statistically reportable manner and would require a burdensome manual search to gather the data.
The interrogatory is not overbroad. The interrogatory relates to a specific timeframe related to a specific subset of individuals. And the information is relevant, because consular interviews are a crucial component in the repatriation process, which is a central component of this case. It is also difficult to imagine that ICE does not track consular interviews, considering the interview appears to be a necessary step prior to removal.
ICE further argues that much of this data is available to class counsel through a less burdensome source – contacting their clients. For the same reasons stated above, the burden is far greater on Petitioners, and the need for the information outweighs any burden on ICE. ICE also argues that the information is unnecessarily cumulative because the information is already provided under the Court's June 20, 2018 order (Dkt. 316). It says that this interrogatory goes further, however, because it also requires ICE to provide the names of class members who will have interviews with Iraqi consular officers for travel documents and the dates those interviews are to occur.
ICE's burden seems rather slight if it is simply a matter of providing the information for interviews that have already been scheduled. ICE does not explain how this information is cumulative. Nonetheless, because Petitioners, and the Court, need a complete picture of the likelihood that class members will be repatriated in the near future, any cumulative objection is overruled. ICE also objects because this interrogatory seeks the name and title of the Iraqi official conducting the interviews for all Iraqi Nationals. Again, this information should be readily available to ICE. Even if it is not tracked carefully, a manual search for the information is warranted here. This objection is overruled.
3. ICE Interrogatory No. 6(q).
*4 Subpart (q) requests “with respect to the existence of a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future (SLRRFF) for the Iraqi National: i. when Respondents most recently evaluated SLRRFF; ii. the outcome of that evaluation; iii. who conducted that SLRRFF evaluation; iv. whether a federal judge has evaluated the existence of SLRRFF, the outcome of that evaluation, and the relevant court and docket number; v. if either Respondents or a federal judge has determined that removal to Iraq is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the basis of that decision.”
ICE objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome because it says that decisions related to Iraqi Nationals for whom a federal judge has found no SLRRFF are not stored in a central repository. According to ICE, individual habeas cases are handled by various field offices; and the results of those cases are not tracked in a statistically reportable manner, and there is no way to identify which habeas cases relate to Iraqi Nationals, whether those individuals were granted relief in the form of release from detention, and the judge's reasoning for release. This burden does not appear significant.
That ICE does not track this information in the manner Petitioners are requesting does not shield it from discovery. It seems that at least one way to solve this problem is to reach out to the individual field offices and get all relevant cases from a specific time period related to Iraqi Nationals and cross check the names of those individuals against the class members in this case. Presumably, this will take some time, but ICE has had since July 6, 2018 to begin this process.
ICE also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and burdensome as it seeks to obtain information that is protected by the deliberative process privilege. Petitioners are not seeking the step-by-step analysis of the person who conducted the SLRRFF evaluation. The interrogatory is quite clear that the information sought is when the evaluation took place, the outcome of the evaluation, and who conducted the evaluation. There is nothing deliberative about a date, a result, and a name. This objection is overruled.
4. ICE Interrogatory No. 6(r).
Subpart (r) requests that “[f]or each Iraqi National for whom Respondents have sought travel documents from the GOI since March 1, 2017, provide ... whether Respondents are seeking to remove the individual to another country, and if so what country/countries.” ICE objects to this interrogatory because the responses would be law enforcement privileged due to the ongoing nature of a law enforcement investigation.
“The federal law enforcement privilege is ‘a qualified privilege designed to prevent disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement.’ ” In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-01952, 2011 WL 1790189, at *6 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2011) (quoting In re Micron Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., 264 F.R.D. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 2010)). “The purpose of the law enforcement privilege is to prevent disclosure of law enforcement techniques and procedures, to preserve the confidentiality of sources, to protect witness and law enforcement personnel, to safeguard the privacy of individuals involved in an investigation, and otherwise to prevent interference with an investigation.” MacNamara v. City of New York, 249 F.R.D. 70, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Three requirements must be met by the Government to prevail on its claim of privilege: “(1) there must be a formal claim of privilege by the head of the department having control over the requested information; (2) assertion of the privilege must be based on actual personal consideration by that official; and (3) the information for which the privilege is claimed must be specified, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege.” In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 271 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
*5 Even assuming the first two requirements are met by Deputy Assistant Director John A. Schultz's signature on the interrogatory responses, ICE does not provide an explanation why this information falls within the privilege. And it is not clear how consideration of removing a class member to another country and identifying the name of the country discloses law enforcement techniques and procedures, threatens the confidentiality of sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, and somehow interferes with an investigation. The Court finds that the law enforcement privilege does not apply here.
ICE also objects to this interrogatory because countries other than Iraq are not relevant to this litigation and it places an undue burden on the agency to manually search through individual records to locate irrelevant information. This interrogatory is directed at repatriation efforts and whether there is a SLRRFF. The specific actions ICE is taking to remove class members, whether to Iraq or another country, is central to this case. The interrogatory clearly encompasses the possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claims in this case, and is therefore relevant. And whatever burden to ICE to find the information to respond to this interrogatory is outweighed by Petitioners' need for the information. This objection is overruled.
C. ICE Interrogatory No. 8
Interrogatory No. 8 states that “[f]or each Iraqi National who Respondents have successfully repatriated to Iraq, provide the name, A-number, location in Iraq to which repatriated, and the last known contact information for the Iraqi National or family members.” ICE objects to this interrogatory as unnecessarily cumulative to the extent it calls for information that ICE is already producing to opposing counsel pursuant to Dkt. 152, such as the name and A-number of class members for whom the stay is lifted who are repatriated to Iraq. However, there has been at least one class member, Muneer Subaihani, who was repatriated without the stay being lifted (Dkt. 379). This interrogatory may have some overlap with other reporting requirements, but there is a vital area that it covers, which other reporting requirements have missed.
ICE further objects on the ground that it does not maintain last known contact information for individuals who have departed the United States subject to administrative final orders of removal. However, ICE concedes that some historic contact information may reside in an individual's A-File, but it would place an undue burden on the agency to search individual files and it is not relevant to Petitioners' Zadvydas claim.
The relevance of the contact information is obvious. Petitioners have asserted that they will face certain persecution if returned to Iraq. Some class members have been returned to Iraq and Petitioners wish to follow up on those members to learn their fate. Additionally, the burden is slight on ICE where the number of individuals repatriated at this point is relatively small. And, in any case, whatever burden ICE may face is small when compared to the significance of the information that may be discovered through responses to this interrogatory.
Finally, ICE asserts that it does not maintain exact locations in particular countries to which individuals are removed. It is simply not plausible that ICE does not have the location of where class members were removed. Perhaps it does not know where the individuals now reside, but it should be able to consult travel records to determine the last known location of anyone repatriated. This objection is overruled.
D. ICE Interrogatory No. 9
*6 Interrogatory No. 9 asks ICE to “[i]dentify each document, communication, statement, and instance in which the GOI has declined since January 1, 2017—either permanently or provisionally—to issue travel documents or otherwise allow repatriation of an Iraqi National.” ICE objects to the interrogatory as unnecessarily cumulative because it says that it seeks the same information previously sought in ICE Interrogatory–First Set Nos. 6-7. ICE anticipates that it will be updating its responses to Interrogatory–First Set Nos. 6-7 as part of its ongoing obligation to supplement discovery. ICE further argues that this interrogatory is unduly burdensome because it expands the temporal limitations of Interrogatory–First Set Nos. 6-7 by seeking information that is outside the scope of this litigation as it predates the commencement of this action.
ICE does not explain in what way this information is cumulative. To the extent the information has some overlap with Interrogatory–First Set Nos. 6-7, the information should be easy to replicate to answer this interrogatory. Furthermore, ICE does not explain why the expansion of temporal limits to a period before the commencement of this action is outside the scope of this litigation. The harms alleged in this action did not begin on the date the case was filed. Actions that occurred prior to the commencement of this case are clearly pertinent to this matter.
ICE further argues that the information is irrelevant because any denial between January 1, 2017 and March 1, 2017 does not bear on ICE's determination in the present day that there is a SLRRFF as to a particular class member. ICE misses the mark. The information is relevant, and necessary, to understand the full story with respect to Respondents' repatriation efforts. If, as Respondents have asserted in the past, repatriation efforts are dynamic and change as diplomatic efforts evolve, it is certainly relevant to understand GOI's position with respect to repatriation effort then as now. This objection is overruled.
E. ICE Interrogatory No. 11
ICE Interrogatory No. 11 states: “Describe each and every step in Respondents' process for determining whether an Iraqi National has a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonable foreseeable future (the “SLRRFF process”), including when each step occurs; the office and titles of the individuals who conduct each step; and the documents used and generated during the SLRRFF process.” ICE responded to the interrogatory stating that it “complies with relevant federal regulations as laid out in 8 C.F.R. 214.4 and 8 C.F.R. 214.13.”[1] Petitioners argue that a naked citation to regulations is an insufficient response to this interrogatory. They say that the interrogatory seeks information about how the regulations are implemented by ICE. The Court agrees. Additionally, ICE did not object to this interrogatory and does not address Petitioners' argument. Therefore, ICE must provide a full and complete answer to this Interrogatory.
F. ICE and DHS Interrogatory No. 12
ICE and DHS Interrogatory No. 12 states the following: “Identify each document and witness Respondents will use at an evidentiary hearing, filing, or otherwise in this action to prove that, for Iraqi Nationals, there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” ICE named three potential witnesses and DHS did not provide any witnesses that they may rely on at an evidentiary hearing. In their objections, ICE and DHS assert that this interrogatory is premature. They say that witness determinations have not been made at this time, and that the documents upon which they may rely may include supplemental discovery responses not yet served. Petitioners argue that should an evidentiary hearing be held, it will likely be within the next month. Therefore, they say that it is not credible that Respondents have not already determined to some extent the specific documents they may rely on in that hearing.
*7 Respondents' argument is unavailing in light of the pending October 23, 2018 motion hearing, which the Court said may, at the Government's insistence, be used as an evidentiary hearing as well. See 9/14/2018 Third Order Regarding September 5, 2018 Status Conference at 2, PageID.9498. Petitioners would prefer to not have an evidentiary hearing at all. Should the Court require it, however, Petitioners are entitled to know what they will be facing. Furthermore, Petitioners are not taking the absurd position that Respondents must provide Bates ranges for documents that have not yet been produced. They are requesting information concerning what Respondents know at this time with respect to witnesses and documents they intend to rely upon at the upcoming hearing. Accordingly, any objections to ICE and DHS Interrogatory No. 12 are overruled.
DHS and ICE must identify with specificity the Bates production numbers for each category of records already identified in their responses, and the documents they may or will use at any evidentiary hearing. In addition, DHS must identify the witnesses it may or will call at an evidentiary hearing.
G. DHS Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3(b) to 3(d), 4, 5, and 10
In response to DHS Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3(b) to 3(d), 4, 5, and 10, DHS refers Petitioners to its objections and responses to Plaintiff/Petitioners Usama Jamil Hamama's First Set of Interrogatories. Petitioners argue that these responses leave them to guess which of those responses pertain to each of the above interrogatories, which seek different, non-duplicative information. DHS does not respond to this argument. The Court finds that it is reasonable to request specific responses to DHS Interrogatories. Accordingly, DHS must set forth its specific responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3(b) to 3(d), 4, 5, and 10, without any reference to any other interrogatory response.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Petitioners' motion to compel (Dkt. 403). On or before October 5, 2018, Respondents must answer fully and completely the following interrogatories:
1. Petitioner/Plaintiff Hamad's First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent (“ICE Interrogatory”) No. 1(e). Respondent ICE must supplement its answer with names and job titles of those Department of Homeland Security and Department of State employees, Government of Iraq (“GOI”) employees, and other persons involved in the process of obtaining travel documents or authorization for repatriation from Iraq.
2. ICE Interrogatory No. 1(h). Respondent ICE must supplement its answer to detail the steps in the removal process after travel documents have been issued or denied by Iraq.
3. ICE Interrogatory No. 5(d). Respondent ICE must supplement its answer to identify if different versions of the GOI form that ICE is aware are or have been used in the travel document or repatriation process.
4. ICE Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7. These interrogatories seek specified information relating to the travel document and repatriation processes (a through p), and custodial reviews (q, r, and s). Petitioners have agreed to narrow the request to May 1, 2018 to present. ICE has agreed to supplement its response with respect to 6 and 7 (a), (c), (d), (e) (with an agreed on wording change), (f) through (p), and (s). Respondent has not agreed to answer (b), (q), (r), or parts of (g) (the name, title, and office of each Iraqi official), and (o) (“any steps Respondents have taken or plan to take after the denial”). The Court orders complete answers to all the subsections.
5. ICE Interrogatory No. 8. Respondent ICE must provide the requested information on Iraqi Nationals who have been repatriated to Iraq.
6. ICE Interrogatory No. 9. Respondent ICE must provide the requested information for each instance in which the GOI has declined since January 1, 2017 to issue travel documents or otherwise allow repatriation of an Iraqi National.
*8 7. ICE Interrogatory No. 11. Respondent ICE must provide the requested information about Respondents' process for determining whether an Iraqi National has a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
8. ICE and DHS Interrogatory No. 12. Respondent ICE should identify with specificity those documents it currently anticipates using at an evidentiary hearing, and to identify with specificity what it means by “supplemental discovery responses and productions” and “all travel documents issued by the Government of Iraq.”
9. Petitioner/Plaintiff Hamad's Interrogatories to Respondent (“DHS Interrogatory”) Nos. 1, 2, 3(b) to (d), 4, 5, 10: The Court orders Respondent DHS to answer, without reference to any other responses.
10. DHS Interrogatory No. 12. Respondent DHS must identify with specificity those documents it currently anticipates using at an evidentiary hearing, and to identify with specificity what it means by “supplemental discovery responses and productions” and “all travel documents issued by the Government of Iraq.” Respondent DHS must also identify any witnesses it may or will call.
Additionally, in light of the possibility of an evidentiary hearing, the Court orders both ICE and DHS to supplement all interrogatory responses 3 days before that hearing is scheduled to take place.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Petitioners note that ICE cited these regulations reversing some digits, as 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.4 and 214.13.