Louise Trauma Ctr., LLC v. ICE, No. 20-3787, 2026 WL 2279955 (D.D.C. August 7, 2026) (Chutkan, J.)

Louise Trauma Ctr., LLC v. ICE, No. 20-3787, 2026 WL 2279955 (D.D.C. August 7, 2026) (Chutkan, J.)

Re: Request for instructions, training material, and guidance that agency gives to immigration court prosecutors

Disposition:  Granting defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s renewed cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, Evidentiary Showing, Adequacy of Search:  The court finds that “Defendants have met their burden.”  “The Declaration submitted by [ICE] describes the search conducted by the Washington office in reasonable detail and shows that the search was adequate.”  The search was conducted by “a single Deputy Chief Counsel in the Washington field office” because ICE explained that “‘each Deputy Chief Counsel maintained the exact same instructions and trainings as one another because they each had oversight over all the relevant subject matter areas.’”  “Because the Deputy Chief Counsel thoroughly searched the two locations where training material and guidance would be located, the search was ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents’ and therefore adequate.” “It was enough for only one Deputy Chief Counsel to conduct the search.”  “When the Washington office issued guidance or training materials, it either saved the materials to certain SharePoint folders or emailed them office-wide.”  “The Deputy Chief Counsel who conducted the search manually reviewed those folders and all office-wide emails.”  “It was not necessary for her seven counterparts to conduct a duplicative search of the same locations.”
   
• Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product Privilege:  The court finds that “Defendants’ narrow redactions were proper under Exemption 5.” “Having conducted an in camera review of [one document], the court concludes that the redacted material is covered by the work-product privilege.” “The document was prepared to train ICE attorneys in anticipation of immigration court proceedings against alleged persecutors.”  “Such litigation is not just foreseeable, but routine, and ‘the litigation strategies’ contained in the document ‘are still relevant and used today.’”  “[T]he document here contains ‘lawyer-prepared . . . tips and advice for litigating cases’ against alleged persecutors.”  “The court’s review confirms, moreover, that the narrow redactions are limited to strategic advice, and all reasonably segregable material has been disclosed.”
  
  Regarding foreseeable harm, the court finds that “[a]lthough Defendants’ declarations address foreseeable harm to work-product interests only briefly, . . . that harm is manifest from context and from the court’s in camera review.”  “Disclosure would ‘essentially provide a road map to the strategies’ used by ICE attorneys in cases against alleged persecutors.”  “This would undermine the adversarial process by deterring ICE attorneys from sharing litigation strategy in writing ‘for fear that the information might be disclosed to . . . adversaries to the detriment of the government’s current and future litigating positions.’”