ACLU of S. Cal v. ICE, No. 22-04760, 2024 WL 4454926 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024) (Kewalramani, Mag. J.)

ACLU of S. Cal v. ICE, No. 22-04760, 2024 WL 4454926 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024) (Kewalramani, Mag. J.)

Re: Request for records concerning treatment of hospitalized detainees and detainees released from custody prior to their death

Disposition:  Denying defendant’s motion to reconsider grant in part and denial in part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and grant in part and denial in part of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  The court relates that “[f]or the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration . . . , DHS OIG must present the Court with newly discovered evidence, prove that the Court committed clear error in its Order, or point to an intervening change in controlling law.”  The court finds that “DHS OIG, however, has failed to show that one of the stated grounds for reconsideration exists.”  “Thus, DHS OIG’s Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, to Alter, Amend, or Obtain Relief from the Court’s Order on Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice.”  The court first finds that “on a motion for reconsideration, DHS OIG adds nothing to the arguments made during summary judgment nor does DHS OIG point to any law or facts that contradict the Court’s finding.”  Additionally, the court addresses defendant’s argument that “not determining in the Order whether in camera review was necessary as to these specific documents[] represents a failure to consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Order was entered.”  The court explains that “by not ordering in camera review for the withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the Court indicated its determination that such review was not necessary for those documents.”  Next, the court relates that “DHS OIG claims that by offering ‘unredacted versions of the relevant documents for this Court’s in camera review[,]’ DHS OIG is ‘present[ing] evidence “previously unavailable” to the Court [pursuant to [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] Rule 59(e).]’”  “But [the court finds that] in camera review is not evidence itself; it is a process by which evidence can be examined.”  “Finally, DHS OIG argues that its Motion is necessary ‘to prevent manifest injustice’ under 59(e).”  “However, DHS OIG does not explain what the potential manifest injustice is or what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ require the Court to reconsider its Order.”  “Thus, the Court has no basis by which it can agree with DHS OIG that its Motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.”