Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Scope of Discovery and Putative Discovery Requests

Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 28 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 439
Mayer Brown LLP

71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
July 10, 2018 Main Tel +1 312 782 0600
Main Fax +1 312 701 7711
www.mayerbrown.com
BY ECF
Honorable Steven Tiscione Geoffrey M. Pipoly
United States Magistrate Judge Direct Tel +1 312 701 7902
Direct Fax +1 312 706 8108
United States District Court gpipoly@mayerbrown.com
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: Saget, et al. v. Trump, et al., 18-CV-1599
Dear Judge Tiscione:
The parties met and conferred on July 3, 2018 regarding discovery in the above-
referenced matter, and—per the parties’ letter to the Court (Dkt. 25)—Plaintiffs respectfully
submit the following position statement regarding the scope of discovery. Specifically, this
submission addresses the Government’s position that discovery in this matter should be limited
to the administrative record for the decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. Plaintiffs disagree with the Government’s
position, which is inconsistent with the Government’s discovery obligations in light of the
allegations in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and which would permit the Government to
withhold materials likely to confirm Plaintiffs’ allegations that TPS for Haiti was terminated
unlawfully.
As discussed in Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s pre-motion conference letter

(Dkt. 24), Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the termination of Haiti’s
TPS: (1) was motivated by discriminatory animus towards Haitians in violation of the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses; (2) violated requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1254a because it
resulted from an arbitrary decision to exclude Haitians from the United States rather than from a
good-faith review of country conditions showing that Haitian nationals could safely return to
Haiti; and (3) implemented a new, arbitrarily narrow standard for reviewing TPS that the
Government has failed to acknowledge or justify with good reasons as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs specifically allege that materials in the administrative
record ostensibly supporting the decision to terminate TPS were pretext for implementing a
preordained decision to exploit the TPS periodic-review process to terminate legal status for up
to 60,000 Haitians in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s arbitrary, discriminatory
immigration policies. E.g., First Am. Compl., Dkt. 21, ¶¶ 114, 129.
Plaintiffs’ position regarding the scope of discovery is that they are entitled to discovery
of nonprivileged materials that are relevant to the claims plausibly alleged in the First Amended
Complaint or the Government’s defenses to those claims, including depositions of present and
former Government officials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); United States v. Procter & Gamble
Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958) (“The Government as a litigant is, of course, subject to the rules
Mayer Brown LLP operates in combination with other Mayer Brown entities, which have offices in North America,
Europe and Asia and are associated with Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership.
Case
Mayer 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST
Brown LLP Document 28 Filed 07/10/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 440
July 10, 2018

Page 2
of discovery.”). Plaintiffs have attached hereto drafts of their initial discovery requests to
illustrate the initial scope of discovery that Plaintiffs believe to be necessary and proportional to
adequately prosecute this case. See Ex. A (Plaintiffs’ First Set Of Requests For Production); Ex.
B (Plaintiffs’ First Set Of Interrogatories); Ex. C (Plaintiffs’ First Set Of Requests For
Admission); Ex. D (Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Of Deposition To Defendant Department Of
Homeland Security); Ex. E (Subpoena To Testify At A Deposition To L. Francis Cissna); Ex. F
(Subpoena To Testify At A Deposition For Kathy Neubel Kovarik). These initial discovery
requests all directly address plausible allegations in the Amended Complaint.
Given the Plaintiffs’ allegations, there is no warrant for the Government’s position that
discovery in this matter should be limited to the administrative record.1 In the first place,
Plaintiffs have not only pleaded claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, but have alleged
constitutional and statutory violations independent of any administrative challenge to DHS’s
decision. Moreover, Plaintiffs specifically allege that the administrative record is mere pretext
for the arbitrary decision—preordained by the White House—to implement a discriminatory
immigration policy. Discovery relevant to such allegations would necessarily go beyond any
record assembled by DHS and is appropriate in light of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory
claims. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496 (1991) (recognizing that
review of plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory claims is not confined to the administrative
record where the record does not provide a complete or meaningful basis for review of those
claims). Indeed, depositions of present and former Government officials are essential to this case,
which is based in part on allegations regarding communications among Government officials that
likely reflect improper motives and may not have been documented in the administrative record
(or anywhere). E.g., First Am. Compl., Dkt. 21, ¶ 61 (President Trump opined in a White House
meeting that certain Haitians “all have AIDS”); id.,¶ 62 (President Trump denigrated Haitians as
“people from [a] shithole countr[y]”); id., ¶ 102 (President Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller
instructed State Department officials to recommend terminating Haiti’s TPS; Secretary Tillerson
instructed DHS Acting Secretary Duke that terminating TPS was “just something she had to do”
irrespective of the requirements of the TPS statute). See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc.
v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971) (recognizing that deposition testimony by Government
decisionmakers may be required where decisionmaking was not reflected in administrative
findings or there has been a showing of bad faith or improper behavior).
Moreover, at the June 27, 2018 conference before Judge Kuntz, the Government twice
asked the Court to stay discovery in this case. See 6/27/2018 Tr. (attached hereto as Exhibit G) at
12:25; 18:25. The Government specifically argued: “in a case like this that’s brought under the
1
Plaintiffs admittedly do not yet know what materials the Government believes to be encompassed within the
administrative record. But Plaintiffs contend that any such limitation is inappropriate here because they will need to
obtain discovery of materials that likely would not be included in any record assembled by DHS, and because such a
record would not obviate the need for Plaintiffs to obtain deposition testimony from Government officials. To the
extent that any area of discovery is limited to the administrative record, Plaintiffs reserve their right to challenge the
Government’s position on what materials are encompassed within the record.
Case
Mayer 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST
Brown LLP Document 28 Filed 07/10/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 441
July 10, 2018

Page 3
APA, discovery is not appropriate.” Id. at 18:21-22. Judge Kuntz denied the Government’s
request, repeatedly stating that discovery would not be stayed. Id. at 13:1-2, 6-10, 17-18; 18:11-
12; 19:1-2. This ruling was reaffirmed in the Minute Entry for the June 27 hearing, as well. The
Government’s position that the scope of discovery should be limited to the administrative record
is, in effect, an attempt to circumvent the Court’s repeated and unambiguous ruling.
To the extent that review of Plaintiffs’ claims does relate to the administrative record
assembled by DHS, Plaintiffs note that the Government “may not unilaterally determine what
constitutes the Administrative Record.” Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 739 (10th Cir.
1993). “The whole administrative record . . . is not necessarily those documents that the agency
has submitted as ‘the’ administrative record,’” but “consists of all documents and materials
indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency’s
position.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs further note that their Administrative Procedure Act claims
are not limited to allegations that relate solely to the decision by DHS to terminate TPS for Haiti,
but also encompass materials relating to the adoption by DHS of a new standard for reviewing
and making determinations regarding TPS and any other “practice or procedure” that DHS
employs for reviewing and making determinations regarding TPS. Am. Compl., Dkt. 21, ¶ 124.
Thus, the administrative record must include all documents and communications considered
directly or indirectly by the DHS Secretary in implementing TPS policy under the Trump
Administration in any way that pertains to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, including
communications with and among subordinate DHS officials and communications with officials
in other Executive departments, including the State Department and the White House.
Lastly, Plaintiffs note their position that they do not need to comply with any Touhy
regulations in obtaining discovery against the Government here because the United States of
America is named as a party to the case.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court allow full discovery to
proceed, including the scheduling of depositions, and that discovery not be limited in any way.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly By: /s/ Sejal Zota

Geoffrey M. Pipoly Sejal Zota
MAYER BROWN LLP NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
71 S. Wacker Drive NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Chicago, IL 60606 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602
Phone: (312) 782-0600 Boston, MA 02018
gpipoly@mayerbrown.com Phone: (919) 698-5015
sejal@nipnlg.org
cc: BY E.C.F.
Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 28-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 442
Exhibit A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK SAGET, SABINA BADIO FLORIAL,

NAÏSCHA VILME, GERALD MICHAUD,
BEATRICE BELIARD, RACHELLE GUIRAND,
JEAN CLAUDE MOMPOINT, YOLNICK
JEUNE, GUERLINE FRANCOIS, LEOMA
PIERRE, HAÏTI LIBERTÉ, and FAMILY
ACTION NETWORK MOVEMENT, INC.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01599
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States

of America, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland
Security, and CLAIRE M. GRADY, Deputy
Secretary of Homeland Security,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs Patrick Saget, Sabina Badio Florial, Naïscha Vilme, Gerald Michaud, Beatrice
Beliard, Rachelle Guirand, Jean Claude Mompoint, Yolnick Jeune, Guerline Francois, Leoma
Pierre, Haïti Liberté, and Family Action Network Movement, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 26 and 34, request that Defendants produce the documents described below
within 30 days of service, in accordance with Rule 34(b)(2)(A). The documents are to be
produced at the offices of Mayer Brown LLP, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY.
DEFINITIONS
1. The terms “You,” “Your,” and “Defendants” shall mean Defendants named in the
instant lawsuit, Saget, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01599 in the United States District
1
Court for the Eastern District of New York, individually or collectively, and anyone acting or
purporting to act on their behalf.
2. The term “Plaintiffs” shall mean the Plaintiffs bringing the instant lawsuit, Saget,
et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01599 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
3. The term “First Amended Complaint” shall mean the First Amended Complaint
filed on May 31, 2018 by plaintiffs in the instant lawsuit, Saget, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 1:18-
cv-01599 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
4. The terms “Person” or “Persons” shall mean an individual, corporation,
proprietorship, partnership, association, Agency (including government Agencies) or any other
entity.
5. The term “Agency” shall mean government departments, offices, bureaus, law
enforcement agencies and the like, including, without limitation, DHS.
6. The term “DHS” shall mean the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and
includes but is not limited to, any predecessor or successor agencies, and any divisions,
departments, offices, components (including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), agents,
representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting on its behalf.
7. The term “State Department” shall mean the U.S. Department of State and
departments, offices, components, agents, representatives, employees, and/or other persons
acting on its behalf.
8. The term “TPS” shall mean Temporary Protected Status for Haitian nationals.
2
9. The term “Termination Decision” shall mean the decision to terminate TPS, first
announced by then-Acting Secretary of DHS Elaine Duke on November 20, 2017.
10. “Document” shall have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and includes, without limitation, the original, drafts and all non-identical
versions or copies (whether different from originals by reason of notations made on such copies
or otherwise) of all written, electronic or graphic material, in Your possession, custody or control
or the possession, custody, or control of Your attorney, including but not limited to forms,
memoranda, letters, photographs, sound or mechanical recordings or tapes, information stored on
computer systems, and database queries and responses. Without limiting the term “control,” a
Document is deemed to be within Your control if You have ownership, possession, or custody of
the Document, or the right to secure the Document or a copy thereof from any Persons having
physical control thereof.
11. “Communicate” or “communication” shall mean any transmission of Documents
or information between Persons or Agencies, whether oral, written or otherwise, active or
automated, including but not limited to memoranda, letters, telecopies, facsimiles, e-mails, text
messages, voicemails, electronic transmissions, meetings, discussions, conversations, or
telephone calls.
12. The terms “relating to” and “related to” shall mean consisting of, referring to,
reflecting, or being in any way logically connected to the matter referenced.
13. In construing the scope of these Requests, the terms used herein shall be given
their most expansive and inclusive construction. This includes, without limitation, the following:
(a) construing the terms “and” and “or” used in any Request in the disjunctive or conjunctive, as
necessary, to make the Request more inclusive; (b) construing the singular form of any word to
3
include the plural and the plural form to include the singular; (c) construing the past tense of the
verb to include the present tense and the present tense to include the past tense; (d) construing
the masculine form to include the feminine form; and (e) the enumeration of specific items as
included within the scope of any Request shall not be interpreted as limiting the scope of the
Request.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Produce Documents as kept in the ordinary course, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and
without any rearrangement.
2. Produce all responsive Documents and things that are in Your possession or
control, or that of Your agents, employees, representatives, attorneys, or their associated
attorneys, investigators, or any other representatives. Each Request calls not only for all
Documents known to You and Your agents, employees, representatives, investigators, and
attorneys, but also for all Documents available by reasonable inquiry and due diligence,
including inquiries to other Persons.
3. If, despite the exercise of due diligence, You are unable to produce any Document
requested herein, so state and respond to the Request to the extent possible, specifying Your
inability to answer the remainder, and stating whatever information You have concerning the
unanswered portions.
4. With respect to any document You refuse to produce on the basis of privilege or
any other grounds such as confidentiality, provide a privilege log which conforms to the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).
5. Set forth the Request before each response.
4
6. In the event that more than one copy of a Document exists, produce every copy on
which there appears any notation or marking of any sort not appearing on any other copy
(including routing or filing instructions) or any copy containing different attachments from any
other copy.
7. If You object to any part of these Requests, (a) state each objection you assert in
sufficient detail to permit the Court to determine the validity of the objection; and (b) disclose all
responsive information to which Your objection does not apply.
8. You are under a continuing obligation to respond to the requests set forth herein.
If You subsequently discover additional Documents that are responsive hereto, promptly produce
such Documents within fifteen (15) days of discovery.
9. Unless otherwise indicated, the relevant time period for each Request is August
26, 2015 to the present.
REQUESTS
1. All Documents and Communications identified in response to any Interrogatory.
2. Unredacted versions of any currently-redacted Document attached as an exhibit to
the First Amended Complaint.
3. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant President
Trump relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.
4. All Communications to or from Defendant President Trump relating to TPS or the
Termination Decision.
5. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of any Agency including,
without limitation, DHS, relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.
5
6. All Communications to or from any Agency including, without limitation, DHS
relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.
7. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of any other Defendant
relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.
8. All Communications to or from any other Defendant relating to TPS or the
Termination Decision.
9. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of any Senior Advisor to the
President relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.
10. All Communications to or from any Senior Advisor to the President relating to
TPS or the Termination Decision.
11. All Documents and Communications relating to U.S. diplomatic cables from any
overseas State Department facility since November 8, 2016 regarding TPS or the Termination
Decision including, without limitation, Cable No. Port-au-Prince 2744 dated August 3, 2017.
12. All Documents and Communications relating to TPS or the Termination Decision
in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs within the
State Department.
13. All Documents and Communications relating to then-DHS Secretary John Kelly’s
June 6, 2017 testimony regarding TPS to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs including, without limitation, all Documents used to prepare then-
Secretary Kelly for that testimony.
14. All Documents and Communications relating to Defendant Secretary Nielsen’s
January 16, 2018 testimony regarding TPS and the Termination Decision to the Senate
6
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs including, without limitation, all
Documents used to prepare Defendant Secretary Nielsen for that testimony.
15. To the extent Your responses to the Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission are
anything other than unqualified admissions, produce Documents sufficient to support Your
responses.
16. To the extent not already covered by another Request for Production, produce all
documents identified in, related to, or relied upon to prepare your responses to Interrogatories or
Requests for Admission.
17. Produce the administrative record before DHS relating to the Termination
Decision, including documents that were indirectly considered and documents that did not
support the Termination Decision.
18. Produce the administrative record, if any, before DHS relating to the decision to
interpret the TPS statute to require that the Secretary focus on the initial event triggering TPS
designation (for example, in Haiti’s case, the 2010 earthquake) when deciding whether to extend
or terminate a TPS designation.
19. All other Documents and Communications relating to TPS or the Termination
Decision.
7
Date: July 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly
MAYER BROWN LLP

Christopher J. Houpt
Geoffrey M. Pipoly
Christopher J. Ferro
KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER,

TETZELI & PRATT, P.A.
Ira J. Kurzban
Kevin Gregg
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Sejal Zota
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
Exhibit B


ACTION NETWORK MOVEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01599
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Civil Procedure 26 and 33, request that Defendants answer in writing and under oath the
following Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of service in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the definitions and instructions set forth below.
DEFINITIONS
1
entity.
2
telephone calls.
12. In construing the scope of these Interrogatories, the terms used herein shall be
given their most expansive and inclusive construction. This includes, without limitation, the
following: (a) construing the terms “and” and “or” used in any Interrogatory in the disjunctive or
conjunctive, as necessary, to make the Interrogatory more inclusive; (b) construing the singular
form of any word to include the plural and the plural form to include the singular; (c) construing
the past tense of the verb to include the present tense and the present tense to include the past
tense; (d) construing the masculine form to include the feminine form; and (e) the enumeration
of specific items as included within the scope of any Interrogatory shall not be interpreted as
3
limiting the scope of the Interrogatory.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. These Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require further and
supplemental responses in the event that You obtain or discover additional information between
the time of Your initial response and the conclusion of this litigation.
2. With respect to any information which You withhold based on a claim of
privilege, provide a privilege log which conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(5).
3. Set forth the Interrogatory before each response.
4. Answer each Interrogatory in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and
any other applicable law and rules.
5. If, in answering these interrogatories, You believe that an Interrogatory, or a
definition or instruction applicable thereto, is ambiguous, set forth as part of the response the
language You believe is ambiguous and the interpretation you have used to respond to the
Interrogatory.
6. When asked to “describe” a subject or topic: state the complete factual or
evidentiary basis for the subject or topic that is being referenced, and identify all individuals with
knowledge or information about each subject or topic.
7. When asked to “identify” a Person, if that Person is an individual, specify the
individual’s: (a) full name, (b) last known employer or business affiliation, (c) last known title or
business description, and (d) last known business and residence address and telephone number.
8. When asked to “identify” a Person, if that Person is not an individual, specify its:
4
(a) full name, (b) principal place of business, and (c) primary telephone number.
9. When asked to “identify” a Document, for each non-identical document specify:
(a) the date of the document, (b) the number of pages in the document, (c) the identity of all
persons who prepared or signed a copy of the document, (d) the identity of all persons designated
as addressees of the document, (e) the identity of all persons designated as copy recipients of any
copy of the document, (f) the type of document (e.g., memorandum, pamphlet, report, etc.), (g)
the title of the document, and (h) the general subject matter of the document.
10. When asked to “identify” a meeting, conversation, or communication, you are to
provide: (a) the date and place of the meeting, conversation, or communication; (b) the identity
of each person who participated in, or who was present during any part of the meeting,
conversation or communication; (c) the purpose, content and substance of the meeting,
conversation or communication; and (d) the identity of any Documents relating to or containing
information about the meeting, conversation or communication.
11. If you object to any part of these Interrogatories, please (a) state each objection
you assert in sufficient detail to permit the Court to determine the validity of the objection; and
(b) disclose all responsive information to which your objection does not apply.
12. Unless otherwise indicated, the relevant time period for each Interrogatory is
August 26, 2015 to the present.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify each and every Person and Agency that drafted any document or made
any communication related to TPS, including, without limitation, those Persons whose identities
are redacted from Dkt. 21-3, 21-4, 21-7, and 21-9.
2. Identify all documents and communications including, without limitation,
5
memoranda, directives, guidance, position papers, or statements of policy or practice received,
prepared, or considered by DHS relating to what factors to consider when deciding whether to
extend or terminate TPS, whether formally or informally adopted.
3. Identify all communications, whether formal or informal, from any Senior
Advisor to the President to any Person at DHS or the State Department related to TPS from
November 8, 2016 to the present.
4. Identify each and every Person present in the January 11, 2018 meeting, described
in Paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint, in which Defendant President Trump described
Haitians (among others) as people from “shithole countries.”
5. Identify each and every Person present in the meeting, described in Paragraph 61
of the First Amended Complaint, in which Defendant President Trump said certain Haitians “all
have AIDS.”
MAYER BROWN LLP

Geoffrey M. Pipoly

Ira J. Kurzban
Kevin Gregg
Sejal Zota
6
Exhibit C


Case No. 1:18-cv-01599
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS
Civil Procedure 26 and 36, request that Defendants answer, fully and in writing under oath, the
following Requests for Admission within 30 days of service.
DEFINITIONS
1
entity.
2
telephone calls.
13. In construing the scope of these Requests, the terms used herein shall be given
their most expansive and inclusive construction. This includes, without limitation, the following:
(a) construing the terms “and” and “or” used in any Request in the disjunctive or conjunctive, as
necessary, to make the Request more inclusive; (b) construing the singular form of any word to
include the plural and the plural form to include the singular; (c) construing the past tense of the
verb to include the present tense and the present tense to include the past tense; (d) construing
3
the masculine form to include the feminine form; and (e) the enumeration of specific items as
included within the scope of any Request shall not be interpreted as limiting the scope of the
Request.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Set forth each Request before each response.
2. Provide a separate response to each Request. When any Request has
subdivisions, provide a separate response to each subdivision.
3. Respond to each Request based on all information and Documents in Your
custody or control, as well as all information reasonably available to You, including information
in the custody or control of Your officers, directors, attorneys, agents, representatives,
employees, and other persons acting on Your behalf.
4. You may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to
admit or deny unless You state that You have made reasonable inquiry and the information
known or readily obtainable by You is insufficient to enable them to admit or deny.
5. If, in answering these Requests, You claim that any Request, or a definition or
instruction applicable thereto, is ambiguous, do not use such claim as a basis for refusing to
respond, but rather set forth as part of the response the language You claim is ambiguous and the
interpretation You have used to respond to the Request.
6. If, in answering these Requests, You object to any part of any Request, each part
of that Request shall be treated separately. If an objection is made to one subpart, the remaining
subpart(s) shall be answered.
4
7. If any Request is not answered due to a claim of privilege, in order that the Court
and the parties may determine the validity of the claim of privilege, provide a privilege log
which conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).
8. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), You may not refuse to admit or
deny any Request on the grounds that it seeks an opinion, or concerns an issue of law, or
concerns the application of law to fact.
9. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), if an objection is made to any
Request, the reasons therefore shall be stated. Your answers shall specifically admit or deny the
matter or set forth in detail the reasons why You cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.
Your denials shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith
requires that You qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is
requested, You shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.
10. If You consider that a matter on which an admission has been requested as
presenting a genuine issue for trial, You may not, on that ground alone, object to the Request;
You may, subject to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), deny the matter or
set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it.
11. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these Requests for admission and to seek
further Admissions.
12. These Requests are subject to the duty to supplement as set forth in Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(e), and You shall be obligated to change, supplement, and correct Your
answers to conform to all available information, including such information as becomes
available after answers hereto are served.
5
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1. Admit that Defendant President Trump, in a meeting on January 11, 2018,
described in Paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint, described, inter alia, Haitians as
people from “shithole countries.”
2. Admit that Defendant President Trump, in a meeting described in Paragraph 62 of
the First Amended Complaint, said that certain Haitians “all have AIDS.”
3. Admit that in 2017 Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller contacted aides
to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to discuss TPS and their recommendations whether to
extend or terminate TPS.
4. Admit that the Termination Decision was based primarily on the initial event
triggering TPS designation (for example, in Haiti’s case, the 2010 earthquake).
5. Admit that TPS extension/termination decisions have historically not been limited
to consideration primarily of the initial event triggering TPS designation.
6. Admit that, under the terms of the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, the process to
decide whether to extend or terminate TPS focuses on the conditions on the ground in the
country for which TPS had been designated.
7. Admit that Defendant Secretary Nielsen, former Acting Secretary Elaine Duke,
and former Secretary John Kelly serve at the pleasure of the President.
6
MAYER BROWN LLP

Geoffrey M. Pipoly

Ira J. Kurzban
Kevin Gregg

Sejal Zota
7
Exhibit D


Case No. 1:18-cv-01599
Plaintiffs,
v.

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6),
Plaintiffs shall take the deposition upon oral examination of Defendant Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The deposition shall begin on __________, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the offices of
Mayer Brown LLP, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, or at a time and place as
agreed to by the parties. The deposition will be taken before a notary public or such other officer
authorized to administer oaths, and will continue from day to day until completed, with
necessary adjournments. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic, audio and/or video
means.
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), DHS shall designate one or more
officers, directors, managing agents or other representatives to testify on its behalf to matters
known or reasonably available to it regarding the following topics:
1. Matters for examination may include the same subjects covered by the
concurrently-served written discovery, including the steps taken to gather information and
documents responsive to the concurrently-served discovery requests. Plaintiffs seek testimony
regarding DHS’s policies and practices concerning its process for evaluating and deciding
whether to extend or terminate Temporary Protected Status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1254a, for Haitian
nationals.
MAYER BROWN LLP

Geoffrey M. Pipoly

Ira J. Kurzban
Kevin Gregg
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Sejal Zota
2
Exhibit E
AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action

for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District New York
__________
Patrick Saget, at al.
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-01599
)
Donald Trump, et al. )
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Lee Francis Cissna
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
ì Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or
those set forth in an attachment:
See Attachment A.
Place: Date and Time:

Mayer Brown LLP
1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
The deposition will be recorded by this method: Stenographic, audio, and videographic means of recording.
ì Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Attachment A.
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 07/10/2018
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before
trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to
whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01599
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (date) ; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ ðòðð .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information; or
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or study that was not requested by a party.
regularly transacts business in person; or (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
transacts business in person, if the person modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or conditions if the serving party:
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
expense. otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
information:
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
fails to comply. person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, order, the person responding must show that the information is not
hearing, or trial. reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
the following rules apply: material must:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party (i) expressly make the claim; and
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
order compelling production or inspection. tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
significant expense resulting from compliance. subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
ATTACHMENT A
Definitions and Instructions
1. The terms “You” and “Your,” refer to Lee Francis Cissna, Director of United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his personal and official capacity.
2. The term “USCIS” shall mean United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
telephone calls.
8. In construing the scope of Document Requests, the terms used herein shall be
following: (a) construing the terms “and” and “or” used in any Request in the disjunctive or
conjunctive, as necessary, to make the Request more inclusive; (b) construing the singular form
of any word to include the plural and the plural form to include the singular; (c) construing the
past tense of the verb to include the present tense and the present tense to include the past tense;
(d) construing the masculine form to include the feminine form; and (e) the enumeration of
specific items as included within the scope of any Request shall not be interpreted as limiting the
scope of the Request.
9. Produce Documents as kept in the ordinary course and without any
rearrangement.
12. With respect to any Document You refuse to produce on the basis of privilege or
other copy.
14. If you object to any part of the Document Requests, (a) state each objection you
assert in sufficient detail to permit the Court to determine the validity of the objection; and (b)
disclose all responsive information to which your objection does not apply.
Topics of Examination
1. USCIS’s role in TPS and the Termination Decision including what evidence and
legal factors You instructed USCIS staff to consider when evaluating whether to recommend
extending or terminating TPS.
2. Your role in TPS and the Termination Decision including what evidence and legal
factors You considered when deciding to recommend extending or terminating TPS
3. Your recommendation of November 3, 2017 to terminate TPS, including the
bases for that recommendation.
4. Your communications with the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding TPS or
the Termination Decision.
Documents Subpoenaed
1. All Documents You examined or considered, formally or informally, in deciding
whether to recommend extending or terminating TPS.
2. All Communications to or from You relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

Exhibit F
AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action

for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District New York
__________
Patrick Saget, at al.
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-cv-01599
)
Donald Trump, et al. )
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: Kathy Nuebel Kovarik
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
ì Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors,
or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or
those set forth in an attachment:
See Attachment A.
Place: Date and Time:

Mayer Brown LLP
1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
The deposition will be recorded by this method: Stenographic, audio, and videographic means of recording.
ì Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Attachment A.
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 07/10/2018
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before
trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to
whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01599
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (date) ; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ ðòðð .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information; or
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or study that was not requested by a party.
regularly transacts business in person; or (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
transacts business in person, if the person modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or conditions if the serving party:
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
expense. otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
information:
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
fails to comply. person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, order, the person responding must show that the information is not
hearing, or trial. reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
the following rules apply: material must:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party (i) expressly make the claim; and
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
order compelling production or inspection. tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
significant expense resulting from compliance. subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
ATTACHMENT A
Definitions and Instructions
1. The terms “You” and “Your,” refer to Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, Chief, Office of
Policy and Strategy, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her personal and
official capacity.
2. The term “USCIS” shall mean United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
telephone calls.
8. In construing the scope of Document Requests, the terms used herein shall be
following: (a) construing the terms “and” and “or” used in any Request in the disjunctive or
conjunctive, as necessary, to make the Request more inclusive; (b) construing the singular form
of any word to include the plural and the plural form to include the singular; (c) construing the
past tense of the verb to include the present tense and the present tense to include the past tense;
(d) construing the masculine form to include the feminine form; and (e) the enumeration of
specific items as included within the scope of any Request shall not be interpreted as limiting the
scope of the Request.
9. Produce Documents as kept in the ordinary course and without any
rearrangement.
12. With respect to any Document You refuse to produce on the basis of privilege or
other copy.
14. If you object to any part of the Document Requests, (a) state each objection you
assert in sufficient detail to permit the Court to determine the validity of the objection; and (b)
disclose all responsive information to which your objection does not apply.
Topics of Examination
1. USCIS’s role in TPS and the Termination Decision including what evidence and
legal factors You considered when deciding to recommend extending or terminating TPS.
2. Your instruction to USCIS staff in April, 2017 to collect data on TPS recipients
including their criminal records and rate of public benefit usage.
3. Your instruction to USCIS staff regarding how many TPS recipients were “illegal
pre-TPS designation.”
4. Your communications with the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding TPS or
the Termination Decision.
Documents Subpoenaed
1. All Documents You examined or considered, formally or informally, in deciding
whether to recommend extending or terminating TPS.

2. All Communications to or from You relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

Exhibit G
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
:
3 SAGET, ET AL., : 18-CV-01599(WFK)
:
4 Plaintiffs, :
:
5 : United States Courthouse
-against- : Brooklyn, New York
6 :
:
7 : June 27, 2018
TRUMP, ET AL., : 10:00 a.m.
8 :
Defendants. :
9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
10
TRANSCRIPT OF CIVIL CAUSE FOR PRE MOTION CONFERENCE
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13 A P P E A R A N C E S:
14 For the Plaintiffs: UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE

271 Cadman Plaza East
15 Brooklyn, New York 11201
16 BY: JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO, ESQ.
17
18 For the Defendants: MAYER BROWN, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive
19 Chicago, Illinois 60606
20 BY: GEOFFREY M. PIPOLY, ESQ.
21
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT
22 14 Beacon Street
Suite 602
23 Boston, Massachusetts 02108
24 BY: SEJAL ZOTA, ESQ.
25
Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR

Official Court Reporter
Proceedings 2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)
2 Court Reporter: Denise Parisi, RPR, CRR

3 Telephone: (718) 613-2605
E-mail: DeniseParisi72@gmail.com
4
P r o c e e d i n g s r e c o r d ed b y c o m p u t e r i z e d s t e n o g r a p h y. Transcript
5 p r o d u c e d b y C o m p u t e r- a i d e d T r a n s c r i p t i o n.
6
* * * * *
7
8 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. The Honorable
9 William F. Kuntz II is now presiding. Civil cause for
10 pre-motion conference, Docket No. 18-CV-1599, Saget, et al.,
11 verses Trump, et al.
12 Counsel, will you please state your appearances for
13 the record and spell your first and your last names for the
14 court reporter.
15 MS. ZOTA: For plaintiffs, Sejal Zota from the
16 National Immigration Project, S-E-J-A-L Z-O-T-A.
17 THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. You may be
18 seated and remain seated for the balance of the conference.
19 Ladies and gentlemen of the public, you may be
20 seated as well.
21 Yes, counsel, good morning. Would you please state
22 and spell your name as well?
23 MR. PIPOLY: Good morning, Your Honor. Geoffrey
24 Pipoly from Mayer Brown for the plaintiffs, G-E-O-F-F-R-E-Y
25 P-I-P-O-L-Y.

Proceedings 3
1 THE COURT: Good morning, sir. Please be seated and
2 remain seated for the balance of the conference.
3 And when you speak, I would ask you to pull the
4 microphone close to you that way you will be heard and the
5 court reporter will hear you as well.
6 Yes, counsel.
7 MR. MARUTOLLO: Good morning, Your Honor. Joseph
8 Marutollo for the government. Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, and then
9 Marutollo, "M," as in "Mary," A-R-U, "T," as in
10 "Thomas," O-L-L-O.
11 THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel. Please be seated
12 as well.
13 And again, pull the microphones close and you can be
14 heard more clearly.
15 All right. I'm going to begin with the plaintiffs
16 today. I'm going to ask you to tell the Court what this case
17 is about. Each time you speak -- for the first time you
18 speak, excuse me, I would like you to, again, state your name
19 so the court reporter knows who's speaking and then after
20 that, you won't have to do it again. Just state your name
21 again as you begin to speak and tell the Court, in your view,
22 what this case is about.
23 MS. ZOTA: Thank you, Your Honor. Sejal Zota for
24 plaintiffs, S-E-J-A-L Z-O-T-A.
25 Your Honor, this case is about the Trump

Proceedings 4
1 Administration's unlawful termination of temporary protected
2 status for more than 50,000 Haitian nationals currently living
3 here in the United States, alongside their 27,000 United
4 States citizen children. All ten of our individual plaintiffs
5 in this case, who have all made a home here, face deportation
6 should this unlawful termination not be enjoined. The claims
7 that we have brought are both under the APA, as well as --
8 THE COURT: The APA being, again, for the record?
9 MS. ZOTA: I'm sorry, the Administrative Procedures
10 Act.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MS. ZOTA: -- as well as due process and equal
13 protection claims under the United States Constitution.
14 THE COURT: Keep going.
15 MS. ZOTA: Your Honor, we are asking the Court for
16 injunctive relief on behalf of our clients and to find
17 specifically that this order -- that this termination was in
18 violation of the Equal Protection Clause, of the Due Process
19 Clause, of the Administrative Procedures Act, was ultra vires
20 under federal common law, it violates the Regulatory
21 Flexibility Act --
22 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to slow it down
23 when you are reading.
24 MS. ZOTA: Okay.
25 THE COURT: We all tend to speed up, even Lord Vader

Proceedings 5
1 here, so go ahead.
2 MS. ZOTA: Okay.
3 -- that it also violates the notice-and-comment
4 rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, and for
5 those reasons, we are acting -- we are asking for injunctive
6 relief, for declaratory relief, and for the Court to find that
7 this termination was unlawful.
8 THE COURT: All right. I have read your May 31st
9 first amended complaint and the prior pleadings as well in
10 this case.
11 How quickly do you think you would be ready to try
12 this case?
13 MS. ZOTA: Your Honor, in light of the fact that
14 this -- you know, the termination itself is not affected -- is
15 not effective until July of next year --
16 THE COURT: Right, July of 2019, yes.
17 MS. ZOTA: However, Haitian TPS holders --
18 THE COURT: No, no. I get all that. I was trying
19 to signal that even though I have asked you to describe the
20 case, I have read the materials very carefully, so my question
21 to you, as an advocate, is: How long do you think it will
22 take you to be ready to try the case? How many weeks from
23 this Friday --
24 MS. ZOTA: Yes. So --
25 THE COURT: -- given a window?

Proceedings 6
1 MS. ZOTA: I think the key issue is how quickly
2 discovery can be completed. We'll need discovery to be
3 completed before we file our preliminary injunction motion.
4 THE COURT: Okay. I will rephrase the question.
5 How quickly do you think you can complete the
6 discovery that you need on your end to try the case?
7 MS. ZOTA: Your Honor, we can very quickly serve
8 requests on the government --
9 THE COURT: Just give me a -- I'm sorry, I'm from
10 Brooklyn, I'm kind of slow in some of these things. Just tell
11 me how many weeks from this Friday, in your view, do you
12 believe you need to complete the discovery you need in the
13 case to be in a position as the plaintiffs in this case to try
14 this case understanding that the TPS status is scheduled to
15 end a year from this July. So we're not looking at something
16 that ends the day after tomorrow, so the reason I'm asking --
17 you can talk to your colleague in a second, but why don't you
18 look at me for the moment, at least. How many weeks from this
19 Friday do you think you need to complete the discovery that
20 you need to be in a position to try the case? And I guess I
21 want to hear what your view on that is at this point.
22 A Yes, Your Honor, we can serve our request within two
23 weeks.
24 THE COURT: No, no. That's not my question. My
25 question is: How many weeks from this Friday do you think you

Proceedings 7
1 will need to get through the discovery you need to be in a
2 position to try the case? I'm not asking you how many weeks
3 to serve your papers --
4 MS. ZOTA: Yes.
5 THE COURT: I'm not asking that question; I'm asking
6 my question. How many weeks?
7 MS. ZOTA: Your Honor, we would be prepared for
8 trial in September.
9 THE COURT: Okay. So September -- what day in
10 September do you think you would be ready to try this case?
11 MS. ZOTA: September 10th.
12 THE COURT: September 10th, is that a Monday?
13 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: That's a Monday, Judge.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 So you say you think you can get through the
16 discovery you need and be ready to try this case on
17 September 10th of 2018?
18 MS. ZOTA: Yes, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 Now I will turn to the government.
21 Why don't you tell me what you think this case is
22 about.
23 MR. MARUTOLLO: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 So first, just in general, Your Honor, TPS is
25 Temporary Protection --

Proceedings 8
1 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to go
2 through the same drill. Just state your name again and spell
3 it for the reporter one more time and then we'll go ahead.
4 MR. MARUTOLLO: Joseph Marutollo, M-A-R-U-T-O-L-L-O.
5 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Proceed.
6 MR. MARUTOLLO: Just as background, Your Honor, TPS
7 is not tantamount to asylum; it's not a protected status of
8 any kind. It's temporary relief that's accorded on certain
9 individuals following --
10 (Court reporter requested clarification.)
11 THE COURT: I tell people, channel your inner Lord
12 Vader speech pattern as opposed to your inner Chris Rock
13 speech pattern, your inner Annie Hall speech pattern, your
14 inner Chris Rock speech pattern. I try to be inclusive, but
15 that's just my low rent way of saying slow down.
16 MR. MARUTOLLO: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Slow it down.
18 MR. MARUTOLLO: It's a humanitarian program that is
19 designed to accord temporary relief to certain aliens who are
20 in the United States due to natural disasters or other
21 extraordinary conditions. The government intends to move to
22 dismiss this case, first, for lack of subject matter
23 jurisdiction under 12(b)(1). We argue that Congress has
24 explicitly barred TPS determinations from judicial review, the
25 cite is 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A), which ultimately says that

Proceedings 9
1 there's no judicial review of any determination of the
2 Secretary with respect to the designation or the termination
3 or extension of a designation.
4 THE COURT: And then again, just so the record is
5 clear, that is a cite to what?
6 MR. MARUTOLLO: The U.S. Code, 8 U.S.C.
7 1254a(b)(5)(A), and this is very significant, Your Honor,
8 because, you know, again, as a matter of jurisdiction, this --
9 what the plaintiffs are seeking here would essentially disrupt
10 how TPS is administered in the future. So, for instance,
11 here, they're seeking to challenge the termination of TPS,
12 which Congress has explicitly barred, you know, any judicial
13 review; however, if future litigants -- if the plaintiffs are
14 successful here, future litigants could easily raise the same
15 challenge to designations of TPS in the future.
16 So, you know, this is something where -- you know,
17 just, again, putting politics and everything else aside, as a
18 matter of law, as a matter of jurisdiction, we argue that
19 there's no subject matter jurisdiction here.
20 We also argue that there's no subject -- excuse
21 me -- that the Court cannot obtain equitable relief and the
22 Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims against the
23 President. The President is named as a defendant here. We
24 argue that the Court may not order equitable relief against
25 the President. We cite to a number of cases in our letter.

Proceedings 10
1 We also note --
2 THE COURT: Is it your position that the Court does
3 not have power over the other members of the President's
4 administration who, I believe, are also named as parties, in
5 addition to naming President Trump in his official capacity as
6 President of the United States? The Department of Homeland
7 Security, as an entity, is named; Kirstjen, K-I-R-S-T-J-E-N,
8 Nielsen, N-I-E-L-S-E-N, Secretary of Homeland Security, is
9 named as a defendant in her official capacity; and also Elaine
10 C. Duke, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
11 Is it your position that the Court does not have
12 jurisdiction with respect to that entity and to those
13 individuals other than President Trump?
14 MR. MARUTOLLO: If the Court finds that there's
15 subject matter jurisdiction, so if our --
16 THE COURT: I understand.
17 MR. MARUTOLLO: -- if that primary argument fails,
18 then, yes, they would be -- DHS and Secretary Nielsen and the
19 other individuals, besides the President, would be subject to
20 jurisdiction at that --
21 THE COURT: So just so the Court understands the
22 argument that you are making with respect to the entities and
23 individuals other than the President of the United States, you
24 are not saying this Court lacks jurisdiction over those
25 individuals and entities; in fact, you are conceding that the

Proceedings 11
1 Court would have jurisdiction over those individuals and
2 Homeland Security if there was subject matter jurisdiction,
3 which obviously is a preliminary threshold question the Court
4 has to decide.
5 Do I understand your position?
6 MR. MARUTOLLO: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay. I got it. Why don't you go on to
8 the next point.
9 MR. MARUTOLLO: Sure, Your Honor.
10 If there is jurisdiction here, and if, you know,
11 assuming that the President is dismissed from the case as
12 well, the plaintiffs' claim still fail on the merits and we
13 are prepared to move under 12(b)(6) to argue that the
14 plaintiffs cannot show that the acting Secretary -- in this
15 case, it was Acting Secretary Duke who made the
16 determination -- that her decision was not rationally related
17 to a legitimate government interest, they cannot show that her
18 decision was arbitrary and capricious --
19 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to -- I'm going to
20 say Vader, not Rock, okay? Or Vader, not Woody Allen. You
21 have got to slow it down.
22 MR. MARUTOLLO: Sure. My apologies, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: It's okay.
24 MR. MARUTOLLO: Ultimately here, Your Honor, we
25 submit that, again, the plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits.

Proceedings 12
1 The government -- should this proceed to the merits, the
2 standard of review in this type of action would be a rational
3 basis review, and we would submit that that position was
4 strengthened by yesterday's decision in Trump v. Hawaii from
5 the Supreme Court. And given the deference as well, you know,
6 our position would be that the Acting Secretary's decision was
7 consistent with the statute's goal here of providing temporary
8 relief and that assessing, you know, whether that temporary
9 relief can continue, and ultimately she found that they had
10 not met that standard.
11 THE COURT: Right. But Chief Justice Roberts'
12 decision, of course, was based on the establishment cause; was
13 it not?
14 MR. MARUTOLLO: It was, Your Honor, but there was a
15 discussion yesterday in that decision related to the degree of
16 scrutiny, how much deference is given for the government's
17 actions and constitutional, slash, APA claims, but I think
18 that only bolsters our argument. There's also other cases,
19 including in the Second Circuit, Rajah, R-A-J-A-H, v. Mukasey,
20 M-U-K-A-S-E-Y, in which similar circumstances, the rational
21 basis was, you know, was the standard that was set forth.
22 Your Honor, the last point at this stage that we
23 want to raise is that we think that, first, you know, just in
24 terms of discovery, we think that there's -- first, there's no
25 jurisdiction here, so we don't think discovery is warranted.

Proceedings 13
1 THE COURT: Well, I am not going to stay discovery
2 in this case. Whether or not there is subject matter
3 jurisdiction -- and, as you well know, subject matter
4 jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the litigation, and
5 if the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it
6 does not have it, but I am not going to stay discovery in this
7 case for the reasons that you have touched on in terms of the
8 importance of the case. I will allow the parties to go
9 forward with discovery as they go forward with the motions on
10 the litigation, so let me -- perhaps, to put the cart behind
11 the horse, not in front of you, I will allow you to make the
12 motion to dismiss. I will give you whatever briefing time you
13 feel you need to submit your motion to dismiss. Just tell me
14 how many weeks from this Friday you need -- hang on.
15 MR. MARUTOLLO: Sure.
16 THE COURT: -- you need to submit that motion and I
17 will give you that time. I will not, as I said, stay
18 discovery during that period.
19 Now, I will allow the parties, in part because of
20 some of the things that both sides have said, the opportunity
21 to include materials beyond the four corners of the complaint,
22 so I am not going to confine you to the strictures of a
23 12(b)(6) if you wish to include materials beyond the four
24 corners of the complaint, both as a sword and as a shield, I
25 will deem it converted to a Rule 56 motion, and you will not

Proceedings 14
1 have to come back to this court for a Rule 56 conference.
2 So you are free to proceed with the discovery you
3 feel you need; you are free to move to dismiss and to
4 attach -- or not -- in your motion papers both your initial
5 set of moving papers and opposition papers and responsive
6 papers, materials beyond the four corners of the complaint if
7 you wish to do so, and I will deem it a Rule 56 motion, as I
8 can and have the power to do and will do so under the Federal
9 Rules of Civil Procedure.
10 So, having said that, how many weeks from this
11 Friday do you believe you need to submit your motion to
12 dismiss, and I will give you as many weeks as you indicate you
13 need, sir.
14 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, if I may, it may depend
15 on that trial date that you set.
16 THE COURT: Well, I have not set a trial date yet,
17 so why don't you tell me how many weeks. And obviously if you
18 successfully move to dismiss, there will not be a trial, but
19 let's just talk about how many weeks from this Friday you need
20 to have to submit your motion to dismiss, and I will give you
21 as many weeks as you want.
22 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, if possible, we would
23 like until August 10th.
24 THE COURT: All right. That is possible and you
25 have that. That is August 10th.

Proceedings 15
1 Is that a Friday, Mr. Jackson?
2 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, Judge.
3 THE COURT: Now the bid is back to you, counsel for
4 the plaintiffs. How many weeks from August 10th -- and,
5 spoiler alert, I will give you as many as you need -- do you
6 need to have to respond to the motion to dismiss? And another
7 spoiler alert -- I know you haven't seen the papers yet
8 because they haven't written and served them yet, so I will
9 give you as many weeks as you want from August 10th to reply
10 to their motion papers.
11 MR. PIPOLY: Thank you, Your Honor. Can I have a
12 moment to confer?
13 THE COURT: Of course.
14 (Short pause.)
15 MR. PIPOLY: Your Honor, I think that August 31st we
16 could have a response.
17 THE COURT: Okay. You have it. Friday,
18 August 31st, that's when your response will be due.
19 And now, counsel for the government, the bid is now
20 back to you, sir. How many weeks from Friday, August 31st, do
21 you require to respond to the opposition papers -- responsive
22 papers that you will receive from plaintiffs do you require?
23 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, just looking at my own
24 schedule, if possible, I would like until September 21st --
25 THE COURT: September 21st, sir, you have it.

Proceedings 16
1 That's a Friday, correct?
2 MR. MARUTOLLO: Yes, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: All right. So, just to call out the
4 dates again, the government has until Friday, August the 10th,
5 to serve the motion to dismiss. And, again, you can include
6 materials from beyond the four corners of the pleadings in
7 that respect. August 10th.
8 The plaintiffs have until August 31st to respond to
9 the papers that are submitted by the government, and the
10 government then has until September 21st to reply to your
11 papers responding to their motion. Discovery is not stayed
12 during the pendency of the motion practice. If you have any
13 discovery disputes, and I'm not saying you should, but for
14 someone who practiced law for 33 years as a civil litigator
15 principally, I understand that there may be discovery issues
16 that may come up. Here in the Eastern District, we have a
17 magistrate judge assigned to each case, and in your case, you
18 are particularly blessed, as we are in most cases, but in this
19 one in particular, that you have Magistrate Judge Tiscione,
20 T-I-S-C-I-O-N-E, who is your assigned magistrate judge to
21 handle any and all discovery disputes. So if you have any
22 discovery disputes, you should bring them to Magistrate Judge
23 Tiscione. His chambers is obviously in this building, and
24 unlike me, who is such a dinosaur, there are some instances
25 where you can even have -- I believe they are called telephone

Proceedings 17
1 conferences to resolve discovery disputes. Shocking thing to
2 an old school practitioner, such as my self.
3 On the other hand, Magistrate Judge Tiscione may
4 very well direct you to come in for face-to-face conferences
5 to resolve any discovery disputes that you might have.
6 And once the motion is fully briefed, I am going to
7 ask the government, as a moving party, to submit all of the
8 motion papers on ECF by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21st.
9 In addition to that, I am directing the government
10 to submit a courtesy copy of all the motion papers in hard
11 copy to the attention of my courtroom deputy, who sits before
12 you, Mr. Andrew Jackson, here at the courthouse, and that is
13 to be done by overnight mail delivery to the attention of
14 Mr. Andrew Jackson here at the courthouse.
15 Once the motion has been fully briefed and is
16 submitted as of close of business on Friday, September 21st, I
17 will obviously promptly read all of the motion papers, and, at
18 that point, I will, if I require it, set the case down for
19 oral argument on the motion, or I will decide the motion on
20 the written submissions. So that's another reason for you to
21 be as expansive as you are comfortable being with respect to
22 your written submissions, so don't hold anything back saying,
23 well, I'll bring that up at oral argument, because I may
24 decide on the papers. So feel free to include whatever you
25 need to include on the papers.

Proceedings 18
1 On the other hand, I am free to, and always reserve
2 the right to, call counsel in for oral argument. I will
3 certainly give you appropriate notice of the date for oral
4 argument if I decide to have you in for oral argument, and I
5 will make the decision whether to schedule oral argument or
6 not promptly upon review and receipt of the papers on Friday,
7 September 21st. I have no life, so I assure you I will be
8 reading them the moment they come in, and you will get an
9 indication sooner rather than later as to whether or not there
10 will be oral argument.
11 So, understand, there's no discovery stay, you are
12 free to proceed with your discovery, and I will decide the
13 motion, and I think at that point, if I decide that the case
14 is to proceed, I will give you a trial date rather than set an
15 artificial trial date now.
16 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, may I just note two
17 items?
18 THE COURT: Of course.
19 MR. MARUTOLLO: So, first, Your Honor, I understand
20 that you've not stayed discovery, but we would point out that
21 in a case like this that's brought under the APA, discovery is
22 not appropriate. At most --
23 THE COURT: You know, that sounds a lot like you are
24 asking me to reconsider my ruling.
25 MR. MARUTOLLO: I am, Your Honor.

Proceedings 19
1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I've reconsidered it and
2 discovery is not stayed.
3 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, additionally, I guess
4 just to clarify a bit further, I realize there's been
5 discussions about how long the discovery would take in a case
6 like this, and I would note that given the claims that are
7 made and the levels of government that will be involved in
8 terms of review and seeing what's privileged or what can be
9 produced, I know the Court hasn't set a discovery deadline
10 yet, but I would respectfully submit that the Court not set a
11 discovery deadline at this stage.
12 THE COURT: I haven't. And what I have said to you
13 is we have a superb magistrate judge who is extremely
14 experienced and sophisticated about handling discovery issues.
15 I am sure he will have you in for a Rule 26(f) conference
16 sooner rather than later. Both sides are free and, indeed,
17 encouraged to contact the magistrate judge, perhaps as soon as
18 today when you leave this courtroom, as to setting up a
19 discovery schedule, conferences with him. He's very
20 user-friendly and very accessible to you, so that should not
21 be a problem.
22 MR. PIPOLY: Your Honor, one additional --
23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, anything else from you on
24 this point or related -- I will come back to you if you want
25 to think about something.

Proceedings 20
1 MR. MARUTOLLO: I mean, Your Honor, if possible, we
2 would like to at least reserve our right to raise additional
3 arguments about not necessarily the stay of discovery, but
4 that the --
5 THE COURT: The scope of discovery?
6 MR. MARUTOLLO: The scope of discovery.
7 THE COURT: Well, this is why I keep singing the
8 praises of Magistrate Judge Tiscione. He really is very well
9 positioned to handle any and all discovery issues that arise.
10 He's very good.
11 MR. MARUTOLLO: Okay. Thank you.
12 THE COURT: And he is very here, and he is very much
13 going to do that.
14 Now the bid is back to you, counsel.
15 MR. PIPOLY: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 As the Court noted just a few minutes ago, this is
17 an incredibly important case with very complicated issues,
18 and, as such, we were curious as to the Court's thoughts about
19 both the propriety and the scheduling deadlines for district
20 court level amicus, which typically, and in this court I don't
21 think it's any different, require leave of the court to
22 file --
23 THE COURT: If anyone wants to file an amicus
24 brief -- anyone on either side -- they are more than welcome
25 to file it at any time.

Proceedings 21
1 MR. PIPOLY: At any time?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
4 THE COURT: Including today.
6 Anything else?
7 MR. MARUTOLLO: Your Honor, just given the scope and
8 these issues, perhaps to save some time later, would the Court
9 allow us to have 30 pages rather than 25 pages for the --
10 THE COURT: Yes, you have it.
11 MR. PIPOLY: I was going to ask the same thing.
12 THE COURT: And you have it too.
14 THE COURT: See, I really did practice law for
15 30 years.
16 I could never understand why judges wouldn't
17 routinely -- cases where you needed 30 pages, give you 30
18 pages. So you have 30 pages.
19 MR. MARUTOLLO: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Anything else I can help you with today,
22 counsel?
23 MR. MARUTOLLO: No, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Anything else, counsel?
25 MR. PIPOLY: No, Your Honor.

Proceedings 22
1 MS. ZOTA: No, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Thank you. We're adjourned.
3 (Matter concluded.)
5 * * * * *
7 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
8
9 /s/ Denise Parisi June 27, 2018

_________________________________ ________________
10 DENISE PARISI DATE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25


Plaintiffs&#39; Letter Regarding Scope of Discovery and Putative Discovery Requests

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Plaintiffs&#39; Letter Regarding Scope of Discovery and Putative Discovery Requests

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 28 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 439

Mayer Brown LLP

Re: Saget, et al. v. Trump, et al., 18-CV-1599

Dear Judge Tiscione:

As discussed in Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s pre-motion conference letter

July 10, 2018

July 10, 2018

By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly By: /s/ Sejal Zota

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PATRICK SAGET, SABINA BADIO FLORIAL,

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS

purporting to act on their behalf.

District of New York.

4. The terms “Person” or “Persons” shall mean an individual, corporation,

proprietorship, partnership, association, Agency (including government Agencies) or any other

enforcement agencies and the like, including, without limitation, DHS.

representatives, employees, and/or other persons acting on its behalf.

departments, offices, components, agents, representatives, employees, and/or other persons

acting on its behalf.

announced by then-Acting Secretary of DHS Elaine Duke on November 20, 2017.

memoranda, letters, photographs, sound or mechanical recordings or tapes, information stored on

physical control thereof.

11. “Communicate” or “communication” shall mean any transmission of Documents

or information between Persons or Agencies, whether oral, written or otherwise, active or

messages, voicemails, electronic transmissions, meetings, discussions, conversations, or

reflecting, or being in any way logically connected to the matter referenced.

without any rearrangement.

control, or that of Your agents, employees, representatives, attorneys, or their associated

including inquiries to other Persons.

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).

5. Set forth the Request before each response.

responsive information to which Your objection does not apply.

such Documents within fifteen (15) days of discovery.

26, 2015 to the present.

1. All Documents and Communications identified in response to any Interrogatory.

2. Unredacted versions of any currently-redacted Document attached as an exhibit to

the First Amended Complaint.

3. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant President

Trump relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

4. All Communications to or from Defendant President Trump relating to TPS or the

5. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of any Agency including,

without limitation, DHS, relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

6. All Communications to or from any Agency including, without limitation, DHS

relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

7. All Documents in the possession, custody, or control of any other Defendant

relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

8. All Communications to or from any other Defendant relating to TPS or the

President relating to TPS or the Termination Decision.

TPS or the Termination Decision.

Secretary Kelly for that testimony.

14. All Documents and Communications relating to Defendant Secretary Nielsen’s

Documents used to prepare Defendant Secretary Nielsen for that testimony.

Requests for Admission.

support the Termination Decision.

or terminate a TPS designation.

Date: July 10, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly

MAYER BROWN LLP

KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER,

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Scope of Discovery and Putative Discovery Requests

Plaintiffs' Letter Regarding Scope of Discovery and Putative Discovery Requests