Mora-Villalpando v. ICE, No. 18-0655, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125913 (W.D. Wash. July 26, 2019) (Robart, J.)

Mora-Villalpando v. ICE, No. 18-0655, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125913 (W.D. Wash. July 26, 2019) (Robart, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning possibility that ICE was targeting immigrants-rights activists

Disposition:  Denying defendants' motion to strike; granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation considerations:  The court holds that "the court denies Defendants' request to strike portions of [plaintiff's] reply memorandum."  The court relates that "Defendants ask the court to strike the portion of [plaintiff's] reply memorandum" because "[plaintiff's] arguments concerning ICE's ability to search [a] database represent an impermissible new argument in [plaintiff's] reply."  The court finds that "[plaintiff] made these arguments in response to Defendants' assertions" and "Defendants may not rely upon this source of information to bolster their own arguments but then deny [plaintiff] the opportunity to rebut those assertions using the same source."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  Regarding plaintiff's first request, the court holds that "[b]ecause [plaintiff] fails to counter any of ICE's evidence regarding the reasonableness of its searches for documents responsive to her First Request with anything other than speculation, ICE is entitled to summary judgment on the adequacy of these searches."  "'Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data will not create a triable issue of fact.'"  The court finds that "ICE . . . searched numerous other components for documents responsive to her First Request," "searched nationwide databases," and "[t]he employees searched their computers (desktop, hard drive, and shared drive) and their Outlook email accounts for responsive records."  Regarding plaintiff's second request, for similar reasons that "the court concludes that ICE's search for documents responsive to [plaintiff's] Second Request was reasonable except for [two sisues]."  First, "the court concludes that ICE's failure to search [one] database rendered its search related to [plaintiff's] Second Request unreasonable."  "As [plaintiff] points out, the CIS/EDMS SORN states that the '[d]igitized A-files maintain in [the system at issue] can be searched and retrieved . . . [t]hrough a full text-based search of records contained in the digitized A-File (based on optical character recognition of the scanned images).'"  "Thus, the CIS/EDMS SORN indicates that ICE can perform a text-based search of the . . . database."  Second, "the court finds that 'Defendants fail to explain why they so limited their search and did not search the OPLA databases using any of the key words provided in [plaintiff's] Second Request . . . .'"  "In this instance, the court concludes that ICE has not produced a 'reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavit' . . . ."  Regarding plaintiff's third request, the court holds that "for the same reasons that the court concludes that it is unreasonable for ICE to fail to search the . . . database with respect to [plaintiff's] Second Request, the court also concludes that it is unreasonable for ICE to fail to search this database with respect to [plaintiff's] Third Request."  The court also agrees with defendants on their not reasonably described arguments, however, "the fact that [plaintiff] failed to reasonably describe the records she seeks in her Third Request does not absolve Defendants from any further duty."  "'[A]n agency has no right to resist disclosure because the request fails reasonably [to] describe records unless it has first made a good faith attempt to assist the requester in satisfying that requirement.'"  "Here, Defendants neither offered nor provided such assistance."