Heartland Alliance For Human Needs & Human Rights v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

D.D.C.April 28, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al. Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) respectfully moves for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). This motion is accompanied by a memorandum of law, statement of undisputed material facts, supporting declaration, exhibits, and proposed order. Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS D.C. BAR # 415793 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia DANIEL F. VAN HORN D.C. BAR # 924092 Civil Chief By: /s/ BENTON G. PETERSON, BAR # 1029849 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. - Civil Division Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2534 Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 17 Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al. Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Per this Court’s Order (ECF No. 20) Defendants, and specifically the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), respectfully move for partial summary judgment in this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case. This motion pertains to 2519 pages of draft reports involving Secure Communities statistical monitoring. Defendant DHS has provided Plaintiff with Vaughn indices detailing the reasons for withholdings per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which exempts from disclosure information subject to the deliberative process privilege. As described in the attached Decl. of James V.M.L. Holzer in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J, Defendant DHS properly applied the FOIA exemption to portions of the records. Because no genuine disputes of material fact exist, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their partial motion for summary judgment and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.1 1 The other named Defendant, United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement, does not possess the records at issue in this partial motion for summary judgment. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 17 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendants hereby incorporate their Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as well as the declaration of James Holzer and the exhibits attached thereto and referenced therein. LEGAL STANDARDS I. FOIA The FOIA requires federal agencies to release all records responsive to a request for production unless a specific exemption is applicable. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A),(4)(B) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). When a FOIA requester properly exhausts his administrative remedies, he may file a civil action challenging an agency’s response to its request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Once such an action is filed, the agency generally has the burden of demonstrating that its response to the plaintiff's FOIA request was appropriate. See id. at 678. II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Summary judgment may be granted where “pleadings and discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). A material fact is one that is capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue is one where the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party,” Id., as opposed to evidence that “is so one- sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 252. A court considering a motion for summary judgment must draw all “justifiable inference” from the evidence in favor of the non- moving party. Id. at 255. The non-moving party, however, must do more than merely establish some “metaphysical doubt”; rather, that party must come forward with “specific facts” Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 17 3 demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 586-87 (1986). “Summary judgment is the preferred procedure for resolving FOIA disputes.” Kaminsky v. NASA, 2010 WL 276184, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010); see also Brayton v. Ofc. of the U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The agency “bears the burden of proving the applicability of claimed exemptions.” Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The burden may be satisfied by declaration(s) and/or indices detailing the reason(s) that a FOIA exemption applies and describing the materials withheld. See e.g., Id.; Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827–28 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “If an agency’s affidavit describes the justifications for withholding the information with specific detail, demonstrates that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and is not contradicted by contrary evidence in the record or by evidence of the agency's bad faith, then summary judgment is warranted on the basis of the affidavit alone.” Am. Civil Liberties Union, 628 F.3d at 619. “Summary judgment may be granted on the basis of agency affidavits if they contain reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “An agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.’” Am. Civil Liberties Union, 628 F.3d at 619 (quoting Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant may not rest on mere allegations, but must instead proffer specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Thus, to avoid Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 17 4 summary judgment, plaintiff must present some objective evidence that would enable the court to find he is entitled to relief. In a FOIA suit, an agency is entitled to summary judgment once it demonstrates that no material facts are in dispute and that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, not withheld, is unidentifiable, or is exempt from disclosure. Students Against Genocide v. Dept. of State, 257 F.3d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 627 F. 2d 365, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The declaration filed herein and attached exhibits demonstrate that DHS has met its obligations under the FOIA and establish that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact in this case. Specifically, DHS has established that the records withheld were withheld pursuant to applicable FOIA exemptions. ARGUMENT I. DHS Properly Applied FOIA Exemptions As explained below and as detailed in the Holzer declaration, DHS properly relied on FOIA exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) to withhold certain information in response to Plaintiff’s request. Once the Court determines that an agency has released all non-exempt material, it has no further judicial function to perform under the FOIA and the FOIA claim is moot. Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Muhammad v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 559 F. Supp. 2d 5, 7-8 (D.D.C. 2008). Such is the case here. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 17 5 A. DHS Properly Withheld Information Pursuant to Exemption 5 1. General Legal Standards for Exemption 5 DHS withheld certain documents in their entirety, and redacted other documents in part, pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA. Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the Agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). This exemption shields documents of the type that would be privileged in the civil discovery context, including materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process privilege. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975); see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Rockwell Intern. Corp. v. DOJ, 235 F.3d 598, 601 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Documents covered by the deliberative process privilege and exempt under Exemption 5 include those “‘reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.’” Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. at 150 (quoting Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318, 324 (D.D.C. 1966)); see McKinley I, 744 F. Supp. 2d at 137-38. As the Supreme Court has explained: The deliberative process privilege rests on the obvious realization that officials will not communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a potential item of discovery and front page news, and its object is to enhance the quality of agency decisions by protecting open and frank discussion among those who make them within the Government. Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The deliberative process privilege is designed to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions by (1) encouraging open, frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors; (2) protecting against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are adopted; and (3) protecting against public confusion that might result from the disclosure of Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 17 6 reasons and rationales that were not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s decision. See Sears, 421 U.S. at 151-53; Coastal States Gas Corp. v. US. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 648 F. Supp. 2d 152, 156 (D.D.C. 2009); FPL Group, Inc. v. IRS, 698 F. Supp. 2d 66, 81 (D.D.C. 2010). Examples of documents covered by the deliberative process privilege include: notes, recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, advisory opinions and other documents such as email messages, which reflect the personal opinions of the author rather than the policy of the agency or the give and take of the decision-making process. See Bloomberg, L.P. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 357 F. Supp. 2d 156, 168 (D.D.C. 2004). To invoke the deliberative process privilege, an agency must show that the exempt document is both pre-decisional and deliberative. Access Reports v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 926 F.2d 1192, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Coastal States Gas, 617 F.2d at 868; Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1997). For a document to be pre-decisional, it must be antecedent to the adoption of an agency policy. See Jordan v. US. Dep’t of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc); see also In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“The deliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply state or explain a decision the government has already made[.]”). To show that a document is pre-decisional, however, the agency need not identify a specific final agency decision; it is sufficient to establish “‘what deliberative process is involved, and the role played by the documents at issue in the course of that process.’” Heggestad v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2000) (quoting Coastal States Gas, 617 F.2d at 868); see Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee v. Board of Governors (“GATA”), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10319, at *22 (D.D.C., Feb. 3, 2011) (“even if an internal discussion does not Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 17 7 lead to adoption of a specific government policy, its protection under Exemption 5 is not foreclosed as long as the document was generated as part of a definable decision-making process.”). A document is “deliberative” if it ‘“reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process.’” McKinley I, 744 F. Supp. 2d at 138 (quoting Coastal States Gas, 617 F.2d at 866). Thus, “‘pre- decisional materials are not exempt merely because they are predecisional; they also must be part of the agency give-and-take of the deliberative process by which the decision itself is made.’” Jowett, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Navy, 729 F. Supp. 871, 875 (D.D.C. 1989) (quoting Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1144 (D.C Cir. 1975)). The privilege protects factual material if it is “inextricably intertwined” with deliberative material, FP L, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 81, or if disclosure “would ‘expose an agency’s decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.”‘ Quarles v. Dep’t of Navy, 893 F.2d 390, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1990)) (quoting Dudman Communications Corp. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 815 F.2d 1565, 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). “The ‘key question’ in identifying ‘deliberative’ material is whether disclosure of the information would ‘discourage candid discussion within the agency.’” Access Reports, 926 F.2d at 1195 (quoting Dudman, 815 F.2d at 1567-68). 2. The Documents Withheld Under Exemption 5 Are Pre-Decisional and Deliberative DHS, an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), is responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, protecting national leaders, protecting critical infrastructure, detecting and protecting against chemical, biological and nuclear threats to the homeland, and responding to disasters. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 17 8 The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (“CRCL”) FOIA Officer, with the assistance of DHS counsel, reviewed and processed the records for FOIA exemptions. On January 12, 2017, DHS provided Plaintiff with a Vaughn index, attached as Exhibit A to the Holzer declaration, detailing the reasons for withholding in full 28 iterations of a draft report totaling 1190 pages per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which exempts from disclosure information subject to the deliberative process privilege. Thereafter, DHS located, reviewed, and processed an additional 1323 records. On March 31, 2016, DHS provided Plaintiffs with 4 Vaughn indices detailing the reasons for withholding 1258 pages in full and 65 pages in part per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The 4 Vaughn indices are also attached to the Holzer declaration as Exhibits B-E. All records described in the Vaughn indices were prepared by CRCL personnel on behalf of the CRCL Officer for her consideration. The records were part of a process of identifying and examining issues and developing recommendations relating to Secure Communities.2 Subject to the approval and signature of the CRCL Officer, the intention was for the records to be submitted to senior DHS or ICE leadership for their consideration and final agency decision. Holzer Decl. ¶ 18. In addition to documenting information, these drafts were also used as a means for line- level CRCL employees to communicate preliminary findings as between themselves and with supervisors in the process of potentially developing DHS’s final report, which was never created. Id. The decision-making authority over statistical monitoring of Secure Communities did not rest with line–level CRCL personnel or their CRCL superiors. No draft statistical report was approved or signed by the CRCL Officer and no final statistical reports were submitted to senior DHS or 2 Secure Communities was administered by ICE from approximately 2008 to 2014. The Priority Enforcement Program (“PEP”) was initiated by ICE in 2015. No draft or final reports discussed in this brief relate to statistical monitoring of PEP. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 17 9 ICE leadership for their consideration, or adopted as final DHS policy. Id. at ¶ 37. “The underlying purpose of the deliberative process privilege is to ensure that agencies are not forced to operate in a fish bowl,” Moye et al. v. Nat’l Railroad Passenger Corp., 376 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004), and disclosure of the draft reports at issue here would lead to such a result. Id. at ¶ 19. Moreover, DHS’s mission would be hampered if DHS employees were reluctant and not forthcoming out of fear that their raw comments and suggestions would be subjected to public scrutiny, or if line-level DHS employees could not engage in open and frank communication with supervisors and decision- makers about their findings out of similar fears. See Moye, 376 F.3d at 1281; Bloomberg, L.P., 357 F.Supp.2d at 169. Further, the draft reports at issue here document information that line-level employees believed was relevant for supervisor review. The records at issue were part of an “ongoing process of revisions and deliberations amongst CRCL personnel and reflect the exercise in judgment by subordinate personnel as to those ideas, facts, thoughts, opinions, issues, advice, proposals, policy matters, and recommendations they believed to be relevant and worthy of consideration by their superiors.” Holzer Decl. ¶ 38. Though some such suggestions are factual in nature, the information that undergirds the factual suggestions reflect variant approaches to calculating comparison statistics that resulted in the suggestions. This choice in turn sheds light on the deliberative process at work in formulating DHS’s preliminary findings because it illustrates (1) the specific topics that the DHS employees chose to focus on in developing their findings, and (2) what information DHS employees chose to communicate to their supervisors. The withheld information is pre-decisional because a final statistical report was never created and is deliberative because it reflects the thoughts of the author of the draft and internal communications about DHS findings still in development. See Moye, 376 F.3d at 1281; Bloomberg, L.P., 357 F.Supp.2d at Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 11 of 17 10 169. Accordingly, the draft statistical reports are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Holzer Decl. ¶ 29. Further, disclosure of notes within the working statistical draft reports would create confusion by providing the public with information that may not have ultimately been the grounds for DHS’s findings. Id. at ¶ 41. Indeed, DHS never produced a final report. Id. at ¶ 37. To disclose this data in its entirety would simply confuse the public regarding the finding DHS never announced in a final report. See Sears, 421 U.S. at 151-53 (finding that the deliberative process privilege is designed to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions by, among other things, protecting against public confusion that might result from the disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s decision). These draft documents are predecisional because they were used to determine what information should be included in the final report. The draft documents are deliberative because they illustrate DHS’s process of selecting, rejecting and analyzing data to formulate the findings published in a never realized final report. Additionally, deliberations included the distillation of facts and data, from a larger pool of data (that was provided to Plaintiff) that CRCL personnel believed to be important and relevant for use in performing various calculations. Holzer Decl. ¶ 39. Ultimately, the draft reports, including seemingly purely factual data, are a reflection of the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel. Specifically, the factual calculations at issue here are imbued with the decision-making of the CRCL subordinate personnel from the choice of statistical modeling utilized and not utilized to the theorizing concerning possible ways to overcome weaknesses in methodologies being considered. Accordingly, the draft statistical reports are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 12 of 17 11 The full D.C. Circuit has declared that factual information should be examined "in light of the policies and goals that underlie" the privilege and in "the context in which the materials are used." Wolfe v. HHS, 839 F.2d 768, 774 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc); see also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that "ultimate objective" of Exemption 5 is to safeguard agency's deliberative process); Sakomoto v. EPA, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that facts may be withheld when they are "directly tied to the deliberative process"). Following this approach, for example, the District Court for the District of Columbia in 2005 allowed the Air Force to withhold "vote sheets" that were used in the process of determining retirement benefits. Brannum v. Dominguez, 377 F. Supp. 2d 75, 83 (D.D.C. 2005). Even though these vote sheets were factual in nature, the court found that they were used by agency personnel in developing recommendations to an agency decisionmaker and thus were "precisely the type of pre-decisional documents intended to fall under Exemption 5." See also Bloomberg, L.P. v. SEC, 357 F. Supp. 2d 156, 169 (D.D.C. 2004) (protecting notes taken by SEC officials at meeting with companies subject to SEC oversight; finding that, though factual in form, notes would, if released, "severely undermine" SEC's ability to gather information from its regulatees and in turn undermine SEC's ability to deliberate on best means to address policymaking concerns in such areas). Recognizing the shortcomings of a rigid factual/deliberative distinction, courts generally allow agencies to withhold factual material in an otherwise "deliberative" document under a few types of circumstances. The first of these is when the author of a document selects specific facts out of a larger group of facts, and this very act is deliberative in nature. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Train, [491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974)] for example, the summary of a large volume of public testimony compiled to facilitate the EPA Administrator's decision on a particular matter Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 13 of 17 12 was held to be part of the agency's internal deliberative process. See id. at 71. The D.C. Circuit held that the very act of distilling the testimony, of separating the significant facts from the insignificant facts, constituted an exercise of judgment by agency personnel. Id. at 68; see also, e.g., Poll v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, No. 99-4021, 2000 WL 14422, at *3 (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 1999) (protecting factual "distillation" which revealed significance that examiner attributed to various aspects of case); Providence Journal Co. v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 981 F.2d 552, 562 (1st Cir. 1992) (revealing IG's factual findings would divulge substance of related recommendations); McKinley v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Res. Sys., 849 F. Supp. 2d 47, 63-64 (D.D.C. 2012) (holding that "purely factual" material was protectible under Exemption 5 because "[defendant] culled selected facts and data from the mass of available information"); Viropharma Inc. v. HHS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 184, 193-94 (D.D.C. 2012) (noting that "[t]he choice of what factual material and prior final agency opinions to include or remove during the drafting process is itself often part of the deliberative process, and thus is properly exempt under Exemption 5"); Columbia Snake River Irrigators Ass'n v. Lohn, No. 07-1388, 2008 WL 750574, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2008) (protecting agency documents that included factual information in part because "the process of prioritizing facts and conclusions and weighing their importance and relevance is often an exercise of judgment that can affect Agency policy") (internal quotations omitted); NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund Inc. v. HUD, No. 07-3378, 2007 WL 4233008, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) (protecting portions of agency internal audit of state disaster relief procedures that relate to "ongoing audit of which the scope and focus are still in development") (internal quotations omitted); Edmonds Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 460 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2006) (protecting factual material considered for, but not utilized, in final report); Judicial Watch Inc. v. DOJ, No. 01-639, 2006 WL 2038513, at *7 (D.D.C. July 19, 2006) (quoting favorably from government Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 14 of 17 13 declaration explaining that "very act of selecting those facts which are significant from those that are not, is itself a deliberative process"); Hamilton Sec. Group Inc. v. HUD, 106 F. Supp. 2d 23, 33 (D.D.C. 2000) (protecting facts in draft audit report on grounds that "any factual information that could be [released] would reveal decisions made by the auditor" and thereby chill future agency deliberations); Heggestad v. DOJ, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 n.10 (D.D.C. 2000) (protecting facts "selected by authors from a larger body of factual material," because disclosure would reveal authors' deliberative processes); Melius v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, No. 98-2210, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17537, at *12 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 1999) (affirming agency denial of "fact summaries that show the investigators' deliberation in determining [plaintiff's] suitability" for federal appointment); Mace v. EEOC, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1150 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (protecting factual "distillation" in otherwise deliberative EEOC report), aff'd, 197 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 1999). Here, DHS generated working drafts of statistical reports that should be considered in the context of DHS’s mission, which is, inter alia, to engage in counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security and the administration and enforcement of immigration laws. Holzer Decl. ¶ 8. To accomplish this oversight role, DHS relies on the candid exchange of information between employees. Requiring DHS to produce all of its working drafts of statistical reports, which generally document the preliminary process of rejecting or accepting suggestions of DHS employees, would hamper DHS’s ability to carry out its mission because it would dissuade or chill employees from offering their candid assessments out of fear that the information they provide may be made public or accessible by their supervisors, about which the interviewed employees may have been critical. Holzer Decl. ¶¶ 40-41. See Moye, 376 F.3d at 1281. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 15 of 17 14 Additionally, the release of multiple iterations of draft reports which contain erroneous information and include reasoning and rationales that did not form the basis for a final agency action would pose a substantial risk of causing public confusion and harm to the agency when compared to one another. Moreover the release of multiple drafts would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes thereby intruding upon the editorial process and stifling the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS causing the same chilling effect described in paragraph 40 thereby hampering the Department’s ability to encourage robust discussion amongst employees and possibly resulting in harm to the Department’s mission. II. DHS Complied with FOIA’s Segregability Requirement Under the FOIA, if a record contains information exempt from disclosure, any “reasonably segregable” non-exempt information must be disclosed after redaction of the exempt information. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Non-exempt portions of records need not be disclosed if they are “inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977). To establish that all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information has been disclosed, an agency need only show “with ‘reasonable specificity’” that the information it has withheld cannot be further segregated. Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 578-79 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Canning v. Dep’t of Justice, 567 F. Supp. 2d 104, 110 (D.D.C. 2008). “Agencies are entitled to a presumption that they complied with the obligation to disclose reasonably segregable material,” which must be overcome by some “quantum of evidence” by the requester. Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1117 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Here, where non-exempt information could be segregated from exempt information, DHS segregated and disclosed the non-exempt information. Holzer Decl. ¶42. In sum, DHS has established with reasonable specificity that responsive documents were released in full or in part after a careful Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 16 of 17 15 determination that there were no further reasonably segregable portions appropriate for release. Therefore, the Court should find DHS has properly complied with its duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt information in the processed records. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant partial summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS D.C. BAR # 415793 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia DANIEL F. VAN HORN D.C. BAR # 924092 Civil Chief By: /s/ BENTON G. PETERSON, BAR # 1029849 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. - Civil Division Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2534 Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31 Filed 04/28/17 Page 17 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al. Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Pursuant to Local Rule 7(h), Defendants respectfully submit this Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 1) Per this Court’s Order (ECF-20) DHS located 2519 pages of draft reports, through November 4, 2016, related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring. James Holzer Declaration (Decl.) at ¶ 4. 2) The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (“CRCL”) FOIA Officer, with the assistance of DHS counsel, reviewed and processed the records for FOIA exemptions. Id. 3) On January 12, 2017, DHS provided Plaintiff with a Vaughn index detailing the reasons for withholding in full 28 iterations of a draft report totaling 1190 pages per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Id. at ¶ 5. 4) DHS located, reviewed, and processed an additional 1323 records. On March 31, 2016, DHS provided Plaintiffs with 4 Vaughn indices detailing the reasons for withholding 1258 pages in full and 65 pages in part per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Id. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 9 5) No draft or final reports were created relating to statistical monitoring of the Priority Enforcement Program (“PEP”). Id. at ¶ 6. 6) DHS, an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), is responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, protecting national leaders, protecting critical infrastructure, detecting and protecting against chemical, biological and nuclear threats to the homeland, and responding to disasters. Id. at ¶ 8. 7) Within the DHS Office of the Secretary, CRCL provides policy advice to Department leadership on civil rights and civil liberties issues, investigates and resolves complaints, and provides leadership to equal employment opportunity programs. Id. at ¶ 9. 8) The CRCL Officer, in relevant part, assists in the development, implementation, and periodic review of DHS-wide and component-specific policies and procedures and advises the Secretary and DHS leadership on those programs, products, and policies that raise civil rights and civil liberties issues. Id. at ¶ 10. 9) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), an operational component of DHS, enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. Id. at ¶ 11. 10) One of two operational directorates within ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), identifies, arrests, and removes aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the country illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of immigration laws and border control efforts. Id. 11) ICE ERO operated Secure Communities until approximately 2014 and PEP until approximately 2017. Decision-making authority over Secure Communities and PEP did Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 9 not rest with CRCL and CRCL does not have decision-making authority over ICE or ERO. Id. at ¶ 12. 12) All records described in the Vaughn indices were prepared by CRCL personnel on behalf of the CRCL Officer for her consideration. The records were part of a process of identifying and examining issues and developing recommendations relating to Secure Communities. Subject to the approval and signature of the CRCL Officer, the intention was for the records to be submitted to senior DHS or ICE leadership for their consideration and final agency decision. Id. at ¶ 18. 13) No versions of the records were finalized or executed by the CRCL Officer. No executed finalized versions of the records were submitted by the CRCL Officer to senior DHS or ICE leadership. Id. at ¶ 19. 14) The drafts reports at issue vary in length and content and reflect an ongoing editorial process in the form of: formatting errors and edits; language followed by question mark(s) within brackets; lists of materials under consideration for inclusion; redlines; language strikethroughs; the highlighting of inaccurate language; placeholders for insertion of language in the future; notations that sections require revisions; discussions of the merits of proposed revised language; discussions regarding the appropriateness of proposed language with suggestions to relocate language to alter emphasis; the highlighting of weaknesses in analysis/argument requiring further development; discussions whether to further develop ideas; opinions regarding flaws and inconsistencies in analysis requiring resolution through policy changes; the identification of issues being vetted; and the identification of topics requiring more fulsome understanding by the drafters. Id. at ¶ 20. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 9 15) The drafts at issue also include tables pertaining to: a. the numbers of aliens as a share of the total number of aliens removed and returned from the United States, further sorted by assignment within a DHSdefined criminal history category; b. the estimated numbers of aliens who, at the time of their removal, should have been considered to belong within a different criminal history category as defined by DHS; c. that portion of Secure Communities enforcement activity dedicated exclusively to misdemeanants; and d. the numbers of criminal aliens as a share of removals and returns from the United States. Id. at ¶ 21. 16) Between the first quarter (“Q”) of fiscal year (“FY”) 2011 and FY 2014, Q1, CRCL received: a. Federal Information Processing Standards (“FIPS”) numbers; b. numbers of fingerprint submissions ICE received via the interoperability conduit between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (“IAFIS”) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (“IDENT”); c. numbers of fingerprints from IAFIS interoperability that matched prints in IDENT; d. dates of completed IDENT matches; e. numbers of fingerprint submissions, matched prints, and number of matches falling within DHS-defined categories based on criminal history for those counties within all 50 states plus American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the American Virgin Islands participating in Secure Communities; f. criminal charge categories, criminal charge codes, type of criminal charge that brought the alien to the attention of ICE, further categorized by where the alien falls within DHS-defined categories based on criminal history, that portion that are ICE fugitives, those that have subject to prior departure or who voluntarily returned, and finally the numbers of aliens who entered the country without inspection, visa violators and overstays; and g. beginning approximately FY12, Q4, alien place of birth and the place of birth for aliens with IDENT matches in yellow-flag jurisdictions. Id. at ¶ 22. DHS released the data described in this paragraph to Plaintiff on October 8, 2014. 17) From the pool of data provided to CRCL personnel and a contracted statistician, DHS selected particular data elements for use in their computations and analysis and the results of their efforts were included in the draft tables within the draft documents. Additionally, Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 9 the tables were utilized in the process of writing the draft reports and discussed within the text of the draft reports. Id. at ¶ 24. 18) The draft records at issue include notations that portions of the tables contain duplicate data and that data figures are estimates. Drafter comments as to the accuracy of the data and comments on whether to include or exclude certain information from the report. The draft tables also contain data figures followed by question marks in brackets, redlines, and language strikethroughs. Id. at ¶ 25. 19) The draft records at issue contain editorial comments expressing concerns with the how figures were derived, data accuracy, and whether additional estimates should be generated. The draft tables contain redlines and language strikethroughs. Id. at ¶ 26. 20) The records at issue contain editorial comments discussing possible inferences to be drawn from data, questions regarding the accuracy of the figures, redlines and language strikethroughs. Id. at ¶ 27. 21) The draft records at issue contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding the inaccuracy of data and percentages due to data lags and variations in criminal history reporting by law enforcement agencies. Id. at ¶ 28 22) The draft records at issue pertain to a report considering variant approaches to calculating comparison statistics, weaknesses and concerns associated with the approaches, and possible solutions for overcoming the weaknesses and concerns. Id. at ¶ 29. 23) The draft records vary in scope, depth, and length of content and reflect the ongoing editorial process in the form of: placeholders for information to be inserted in the future, differing dates on the records, the headers, footers, and watermarks, editing comments, formatting errors, as well as redlines and language strikethroughs. Id. at ¶ 30. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 9 24) The draft records at issue contain six comment matrices utilized by CRCL and DHS personnel in the editorial process of drafting agency memoranda and reports related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring. Id. at ¶ 31 25) Each comment matrix is identical in format and sets forth, in table form, the respective page number and line number of the memorandum or report being commented upon, the initials of the DHS employee making the comment, the type of comment, the commentary, and the CRCL response to the comment. Id. 26) The comment matrices contain the thoughts, opinions and recommendations of CRCL and DHS employees on what content should be included or excluded from the draft memoranda and reports and reflect the give-and-take of an on-going editorial process of drafting memoranda and reports. Id. at ¶ 32. 27) The draft records at issue pertain to a draft report exploring variant approaches to calculating comparison statistics and the strengths and weaknesses between the approach options and possible solutions to overcoming concerns. Id. at ¶ 33. 28) The draft records at issue vary in scope, depth, and length of content and reflect the ongoing editorial process in the form of: redlines, language strikethroughs, placeholders for language to be inserted in the future, differing dates, incomplete entries within the table of contents, placeholders for subsections to be composed and inserted in the future, and editorial comments reflecting decisions will need to be made before additional language can be drafted and included within report sections. 29) The draft records include a six-page undated draft report of statistical monitoring and analysis efforts (Document 55) and a two-page draft introduction setting forth reasons for initiating statistical monitoring efforts (Document 56). Id. at ¶ 35. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 9 30) Document 55 contains reflections of ongoing editorial processes in the form of placeholders for language to be inserted in the future, language identifying assertions within the draft that are incorrect and the reasons therefore, placeholders for six sections of the report to be written and included at a future date, and headers and footers identifying the record as pre-decisional and deliberative. Id. 31) Document 56 contains headers indicating the record is deliberative and a “DRAFT” watermark. Moreover, the language within Document 56 reflects that the introduction was intended to become a part of a larger final report. Id. 32) The draft records described in Exhibits to the James Holzer declaration were generated by CRCL personnel for the consideration of the CRCL Officer. Id. at ¶ 37. 33) Decision-making authority over statistical monitoring of Secure Communities did not rest with CRCL personnel or the CRCL Officer. Id. 34) No draft record was approved or signed by the CRCL Officer and no final reports were submitted to senior DHS or ICE leadership for their consideration, or adopted as final DHS policy. Id. 35) The draft records at issue were part of an ongoing process of revisions and deliberations amongst CRCL personnel and reflect the exercise in judgment by subordinate personnel as to those ideas, facts, thoughts, opinions, issues, advice, proposals, policy matters, and recommendations they believed to be relevant and worthy of consideration by their superiors. Id. at ¶ 38. 36) Deliberations included the distillation of facts and data, from a larger pool provided by ICE ERO and provided to Plaintiffs, that CRCL personnel believed to be important and relevant for use in performing various calculations. The draft records at issue are a Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 9 reflection of the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those calculation results they believed to be relevant for inclusion and further discussion and analysis within the draft reports. Id. at ¶ 39. 37) DHS depends upon the ability of its employees to offer candid ideas and opinions to agency decision-makers without the fear of public exposure. For this reason, withholdings were made to prevent a potential chilling effect on the open and frank discussions of matters between subordinates, and between subordinates and superiors, which would undermine the ability of CRCL, and in turn DHS, to perform its duties. Id. at ¶ 40. 38) The release of multiple iterations of draft reports at issue which contain erroneous information and include reasoning and rationales that did not form the basis for a final agency action would pose a substantial risk of causing public confusion and harm to the agency when compared to one another. Id. at ¶ 41. 39) The release of multiple iterations of the draft report at issue would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes thereby intruding upon the editorial process and stifling the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS causing a chilling effect thereby hampering the Department’s ability to encourage robust discussion amongst employees and possibly resulting in harm to the Department’s mission. Id. at ¶ 41. SEGREGABILITY 40) In processing the records described above, CRCL made significant efforts to segregate non-exempt portions of documents from exempt portions in order to provide plaintiffs with all responsive information not subject to FOIA exemptions. A DHS attorney participated in the review process with the DHS FOIA office and the records were reviewed page by Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 9 page, and line by line. Based upon that review, the documents were redacted and reasonably segregable portions of the records were released to plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS D.C. BAR # 415793 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia DANIEL F. VAN HORN D.C. BAR # 924092 Civil Chief By: /s/ BENTON G. PETERSON, BAR # 1029849 Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office 555 4th Street, N.W. - Civil Division Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-2534 Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-1 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Benton Gregory Peterson Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) Fax: (202) Email: Benton.Peterson@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 208 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Case No. 1:16-CV-00211-RMC DECLARATION OF JAMES V.M.L. HOLZER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. I, James V.M.L. Holzer, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am the Deputy Chief Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Officer for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Privacy Office (“PRIV”). 2. In this capacity, I am the DHS official responsible for implementing FOIA policy across DHS and responding to requests for records under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Privacy Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 86 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and other applicable records access provisions. I have been employed by DHS PRIV in this capacity since May 2016. I previously served as the Director of the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration, and prior to that I served as the Senior Director of FOIA Operations for DHS. 3. I make the following statements based upon my personal knowledge, which in turn is based on a personal review of the records in the case files established for processing the subject request and upon information furnished to me in the course of my official duties. I submit this declaration in support of DHS’s partial motion for summary judgment in the above-captioned matter. 4. Per this Court’s Order (ECF-20) DHS located 2519 pages of draft reports, through November 4, 2016, related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (“CRCL”) FOIA Officer, with the assistance of DHS counsel, reviewed and processed the records for FOIA exemptions. On January 12, 2017, DHS provided Plaintiff with a Vaughn index, attached hereto as Exhibit A, detailing the reasons for withholding in full 28 iterations of a draft report totaling 1190 pages per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which exempts from disclosure information subject to the deliberative process privilege. 5. Thereafter, DHS located, reviewed, and processed an additional 1329 records. On March 31, 2016, DHS provided Plaintiffs with 4 Vaughn indices, attached hereto as Exhibits B, C, D and E, detailing the reasons for withholding 1258 pages in full and 65 pages in part per 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which exempts from disclosure information subject to the deliberative process privilege. 6. No draft or final reports were created relating to statistical monitoring of the Priority Enforcement Program (“PEP”). Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 86 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. This declaration pertains to the Vaughn indices described in paragraphs 4 and 5 and is made in support of DHS’s partial motion for summary judgment. DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION 8. DHS, an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), is responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, protecting national leaders, protecting critical infrastructure, detecting and protecting against chemical, biological and nuclear threats to the homeland, and responding to disasters. 9. Within the DHS Office of the Secretary, CRCL provides policy advice to Department leadership on civil rights and civil liberties issues, investigates and resolves complaints, and provides leadership to equal employment opportunity programs. 10. The CRCL Officer, in relevant part, assists in the development, implementation, and periodic review of DHS-wide and component-specific policies and procedures and advises the Secretary and DHS leadership on those programs, products, and policies that raise civil rights and civil liberties issues. 11. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), an operational component of DHS, enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. One of two operational directorates within ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), identifies, arrests, and removes aliens who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the country illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of immigration laws and border control efforts. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 86 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. ICE ERO operated Secure Communities until approximately 2014 and PEP until approximately 2017. Decision-making authority over Secure Communities and PEP did not rest with CRCL and CRCL does not have decision-making authority over ICE or ERO. ORGANIZATION OF VAUGHN INDICES 13. Exhibit A pertains to 28 iterations of the same draft report. Each iteration of the draft was assigned a letter and the drafts are referred to in the Vaughn index as documents A through Z3. Bates numbers were applied to documents A through Z3 beginning with page 1 through page 1190. Thus, the first page of document A is numbered “1” while the last page of document Z3 is numbered “1190.” The Vaughn index is in a table format composed of five columns entitled, from left to right “Document Section,” “Summary of Document Section Content,” “Respective Document and Bates-Number(s),” “Additional Document Specific Comments,” and “Justification for Application of 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) Deliberative Process Privilege.” The different iterations of the draft report are similarly formatted, unless noted otherwise, and contain a title page, a table of contents/appendix section, an introduction, a summary, and four additional sections. These sections are listed in the Vaughn index under the column heading “Document Section.” The final row of the Vaughn index contains the language found in the header of each draft. The index concludes, in narrative form, with a description of the tables containing data contained within the drafts. 14. Exhibit B pertains to 40 iterations of a second draft report. Each iteration of the draft was assigned a number and are referred to in the Vaughn index as documents 1 through 40. Bates numbers were applied to documents 1 through 40 beginning with page 1 through page 1127. Thus, the first page of document 1 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 40 is numbered “1127.” The Vaughn index is in a table format composed of four columns entitled, Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 86 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from left to right, “Report Section,” “Summary of Report Section Content,” “Document and Bates Number(s),” and “Section Specific Comments.” The iterations of the draft are similarly formatted, unless noted otherwise, and contain a title page, a table of contents section, and eleven additional sections. These sections are listed in the Vaughn index under the column heading “Report Section.” The final row of the Vaughn index describes the language found in the header and footer of the records as well as the watermarks placed on the records. 15. Exhibit C pertains to 6 comment matrices used by DHS/CRCL employees in reviewing unidentified memoranda and reports relating to Secure Communities. Each matrix was assigned a number and are referred to in the Vaughn index as documents 41 through 46. Bates numbers were applied to documents 41 through 46 beginning with page 1 through 65. Thus, the first page of document 41 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 46 is numbered “65.” The Vaughn index is in a table format composed of three columns entitled, from left to right, “Document and Bates Numbers,” “Document Title,” and “Description.” 16. Exhibit D pertains to 7 iterations of a third draft report and a single outline of that draft report. Each iteration of the draft was assigned a number and are referred to in the Vaughn index as documents 47 through 53. Bates numbers were applied to documents 47 through 53 beginning with page 1 through page 116. Thus, the first page of document 47 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 53 is numbered “116.” The Vaughn index is in a table format composed of four columns entitled, from left to right, “Report Section,” “Summary of Report Section Content,” “Document and Bates Number(s),” and “Section Specific Comments.” The iterations of the draft are similarly formatted, unless noted otherwise, and contain a title page, a table of contents section, an introduction, a general points section, and four additional sections. These sections are listed in the Vaughn index under the column heading “Report Section.” The Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 86 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ninth row of the Vaughn index describes the language found in the header and footer of the seven iterations as well as watermarks placed on the records. Document 54, which is an outline of the report drafts (documents 47 through 53) contains bates numbers 117 through 123 and is described in the final row of the Vaughn index. 17. Finally, Exhibit E pertains to 2 draft reports. The two reports are referred to in the Vaughn index as documents 55 and 56. Bates numbers were applied to documents 55 and 56 beginning with page 1 through page 8. Thus, the first page of document 55 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 56 is numbered “8.” The Vaughn index is in a table format composed of three columns entitled, from left to right, “Document Number,” “Summary of Document,” and “Document Specific Comments.” DESCRIPTIONS OF RECORDS AND REDACTIONS PER 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) 18. All records described in the Vaughn indices were prepared by CRCL personnel on behalf of the CRCL Officer for her consideration. The records were part of a process of identifying and examining issues and developing recommendations relating to Secure Communities. Subject to the approval and signature of the CRCL Officer, the intention was for the records to be submitted to senior DHS or ICE leadership for their consideration and final agency decision. 19. No versions of the records were finalized or executed by the CRCL Officer. No executed finalized versions of the records were submitted by the CRCL Officer to senior DHS or ICE leadership. Exhibit A 20. While not an exhaustive list, the drafts described in Exhibit A vary in Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 86 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 length and content and reflect an ongoing editorial process in the form of: formatting errors and edits; language followed by question mark(s) within brackets; lists of materials under consideration for inclusion; redlines; language strikethroughs; the highlighting of inaccurate language; placeholders for insertion of language in the future; notations that sections require revisions; discussions of the merits of proposed revised language; discussions regarding the appropriateness of proposed language with suggestions to relocate language to alter emphasis; the highlighting of weaknesses in analysis/argument requiring further development; discussions whether to further develop ideas; opinions regarding flaws and inconsistencies in analysis requiring resolution through policy changes; the identification of issues being vetted; and the identification of topics requiring more fulsome understanding by the drafters. 21. The drafts described in Exhibit A also include tables pertaining to: a. the numbers of aliens1 as a share of the total number of aliens removed and returned from the United States, further sorted by assignment within a DHS- defined criminal history category; b. the estimated numbers of aliens who, at the time of their removal, should have been considered to belong within a different criminal history category as defined by DHS; c. that portion of Secure Communities enforcement activity dedicated exclusively to misdemeanants; and d. the numbers of criminal aliens as a share of removals and returns from the United States. 1 The term “alien” refers to any person not a citizen or national of the United States. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 86 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22. The tables described in paragraph 21 utilized data ICE ERO provided to CRCL. Essentially, between the first quarter (“Q”) of fiscal year (“FY”) 2011 and FY 2014, Q1, CRCL received: a. Federal Information Processing Standards (“FIPS”) numbers; b. numbers of fingerprint submissions ICE received via the interoperability conduit between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (“IAFIS”) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (“IDENT”); c. numbers of fingerprints from IAFIS interoperability that matched prints in IDENT; d. dates of completed IDENT matches; e. numbers of fingerprint submissions, matched prints, and number of matches falling within DHS-defined categories based on criminal history for those counties within all 50 states plus American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the American Virgin Islands participating in Secure Communities; f. criminal charge categories, criminal charge codes, type of criminal charge that brought the alien to the attention of ICE, further categorized by where the alien falls within DHS-defined categories based on criminal history, that portion that are ICE fugitives, those that have subject to prior departure or who voluntarily returned, and finally the numbers of aliens who entered the country without inspection, visa violators and overstays; and g. beginning approximately FY12, Q4, alien place of birth and the place of birth for aliens with IDENT matches in yellow-flag jurisdictions. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 86 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23. DHS released the data described in paragraph 22 to Plaintiff on October 8, 2014. 24. From this pool of data CRCL personnel and a contracted statistician selected particular data elements for use in their computations and analysis and the results of their efforts were included in the draft tables within the draft documents. Additionally, the tables were utilized in the process of writing the draft reports and discussed within the text of the draft reports. 25. In addition to the indicia of the deliberative nature of the records described in paragraph 20, the records described in paragraph 21(a) include notations that portions of the tables contain duplicate data and that data figures are estimates. Drafter comments as to the accuracy of the data and comments on whether to include or exclude certain information from the report. Finally, the drafts contain data figures followed by question marks in brackets, redlines, and language strikethroughs. 26. Regarding the tables described in paragraph 21(b), in addition to the indicia of the deliberative process described in paragraph 20, the tables contain editorial comments expressing concerns with the how figures were derived, data accuracy, and whether additional estimates should be generated. Finally, the tables contain redlines and language strikethroughs. 27. In addition to the indicia of the deliberative process described in paragraph 20, the tables in paragraph 21(c) contain editorial comments discussing possible inferences to be drawn from data, questions regarding the accuracy of the figures, redlines and language strikethroughs. 28. Finally, in addition to the deliberative nature of the records described in paragraph 20, the tables described in paragraph 21(d) contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding the inaccuracy of data and percentages due to data lags and variations in criminal history reporting by law enforcement agencies. Exhibit B Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 86 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. The records described in Exhibit B pertain to a report considering variant approaches to calculating comparison statistics, weaknesses and concerns associated with the approaches, and possible solutions for overcoming the weaknesses and concerns. 30. While not an exhaustive list, these drafts vary in scope, depth, and length of content and reflect the ongoing editorial process in the form of: placeholders for information to be inserted in the future, differing dates on the records, the headers, footers, and watermarks, editing comments, formatting errors, as well as redlines and language strikethroughs. Exhibit C 31. Exhibit C indexes six comment matrices utilized by CRCL and DHS personnel in the editorial process of drafting agency memoranda and reports related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring. Each comment matrix is identical in format and sets forth, in table form, the respective page number and line number of the memorandum or report being commented upon, the initials of the DHS employee making the comment, the type of comment, the commentary, and the CRCL response to the comment. 32. The comment matrices contain the thoughts, opinions and recommendations of CRCL and DHS employees on what content should be included or excluded from the draft memoranda and reports and reflect the give-and-take of an on-going editorial process of drafting memoranda and reports. Exhibit D 33. The records described in Exhibit D pertain to a draft report exploring variant approaches to calculating comparison statistics and the strengths and weaknesses between the approach options and possible solutions to overcoming concerns. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 86 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34. While not an exhaustive list, the drafts vary in scope, depth, and length of content and reflect the ongoing editorial process in the form of: redlines, language strikethroughs, placeholders for language to be inserted in the future, differing dates, incomplete entries within the table of contents, placeholders for subsections to be composed and inserted in the future, and editorial comments reflecting decisions will need to be made before additional language can be drafted and included within report sections. Exhibit E 35. Two records are described in Exhibit E and include a six-page undated draft report of statistical monitoring and analysis efforts (Document 55) and a two-page draft introduction setting forth reasons for initiating statistical monitoring efforts (Document 56). Document 55 contains reflections of ongoing editorial processes in the form of placeholders for language to be inserted in the future, language identifying assertions within the draft that are incorrect and the reasons therefore, placeholders for six sections of the report to be written and included at a future date, and headers and footers identifying the record as pre-decisional and deliberative. Document 56 contains headers indicating the record is deliberative and a “DRAFT” watermark. Moreover, the language within Document 56 reflects that the introduction was intended to become a part of a larger final report. APPLICABILITY OF 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) 36. Exemption (b)(5) protects “inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). 37. The draft records described in Exhibits A through E were generated by CRCL personnel for the consideration of the CRCL Officer. Decision-making authority over statistical Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 11 of 86 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 monitoring of Secure Communities did not rest with CRCL personnel or the CRCL Officer. No draft record was approved or signed by the CRCL Officer and no final reports were submitted to senior DHS or ICE leadership for their consideration, or adopted as final DHS policy. 38. The records described in this declaration were part of an ongoing process of revisions and deliberations amongst CRCL personnel and reflect the exercise in judgment by subordinate personnel as to those ideas, facts, thoughts, opinions, issues, advice, proposals, policy matters, and recommendations they believed to be relevant and worthy of consideration by their superiors. 39. Additionally, deliberations included the distillation of facts and data, from a larger pool provided by ICE ERO and provided to Plaintiffs, that CRCL personnel believed to be important and relevant for use in performing various calculations. Moreover, the draft records are a reflection of the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those calculation results they believed to be relevant for inclusion and further discussion and analysis within the draft reports. 40. DHS depends upon the ability of its employees to offer candid ideas and opinions to agency decision-makers without the fear of public exposure. For this reason, withholdings were made to prevent a potential chilling effect on the open and frank discussions of matters between subordinates, and between subordinates and superiors, which would undermine the ability of CRCL, and in turn DHS, to perform its duties. 41. Additionally, the release of multiple iterations of draft reports which contain erroneous information and include reasoning and rationales that did not form the basis for a final agency action would pose a substantial risk of causing public confusion and harm to the agency when compared to one another. Moreover the release of multiple drafts would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes thereby intruding upon the editorial Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 12 of 86 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 process and stifling the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS causing the same chilling effect described in paragraph 40 thereby hampering the Department’s ability to encourage robust discussion amongst employees and possibly resulting in harm to the Department’s mission. SEGREGABILITY 42. In processing the records described above, CRCL made significant efforts to segregate non-exempt portions of documents from exempt portions in order to provide plaintiffs with all responsive information not subject to FOIA exemptions. A DHS attorney participated in the review process with the DHS FOIA office and the records were reviewed page by page, and line by line. Based upon that review, the documents were redacted and reasonably segregable portions of the records were released to plaintiffs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this _18____ day of April, 2017. ________________________________________ James V.M.L. Holzer Deputy Chief FOIA Officer DHS Privacy Office Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 13 of 86 A Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 14 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) On or about November 30, 2016, Defendants were ordered to locate and produce all reports (both in draft and final form, including all attachments and exhibits thereto, through November 4, 2016) related to Secure Communities (SC) statistical monitoring and Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) statistical monitoring, or to identify each report or portion thereof being withheld from disclosure and to provide a detailed explanation on or before January 11, 2017, of the reasons for withholding the reports. This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for withholding in full twenty-eight iterations of a draft report, through November 4, 2016, related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring, see Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.D.C. 1973), under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). All reports indexed below were prepared and circulated within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a federal agency, by personnel within the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) on behalf of the Officer for CRCL, with the intent to provide the report in final form for the consideration of the Secretary of DHS. No final report related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring was created, approved, or executed by the CRCL Officer or submitted to the Secretary of DHS or member of senior DHS leadership. SC was operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), a DHS component. No decision making authority with regard to SC or SC statistical monitoring rested with CRCL. No reports, in draft or final form, were created relating to PEP statistical monitoring. Within this index, each of the twenty-eight iterations of the draft report are referred to by an assigned letter; the drafts are labeled as Documents A through Z3. Bates-numbers were applied to Documents A through Z3 from page 1 through page 1190. Thus, the first page of Document A contains bates-number “1” while the last page of Document Z3 is numbered “1190.” The index begins by detailing the reports in a table format. The table contains five columns entitled: “Document Section;” “Summary of Content within Section;” “Respective Document Letter and Bates-Number(s);” “Document Specific Comments;” and “Justification for Application of 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) Deliberative Process Privilege.” Unless otherwise noted, each draft report follows a similar format and is comprised of a title page, a table of contents/appendix section, an introduction section, a summary section, and four sections, each of which may be found under the “Document Section” column. These divisions of the draft reports are located in the rows under the column heading “Document Section.” The final row of the table contains the language in the header of each report. The index concludes by detailing, in narrative form, various tables containing data located throughout the reports. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 15 of 86 2 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Title Page The entries in this row under the column heading “Document Specific Comments” contain the date on the title page of each draft report as well as the editorial language, if any, placed on the title page. Docs A, X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3: N/A Doc B: 25 Doc C: 52 Doc D: 83 Doc E: 119 Doc F: 155 Doc G: 200 Doc H: 248 Doc I: 295 Doc J: 342 Doc K: 389 Doc L: 439 Doc M: 489 Doc N: 537 Doc O: 587 Doc P: 641 Doc Q: 690 Doc R: 747 Doc S: 801 Doc T: 856 Doc U: 911 Doc V: 970 Doc W: 1026 Docs A, X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3 do not contain a title page. Docs B and C: June 2010; formatting questions. Doc D: June 2011; formatting questions. Docs E, F, G, H, I, and J: June 2011 Docs K, L, M, N, O, and P: June __, 2011 Docs Q, R, S, T, U, and V: July __, 2011 Doc W: August __, 2011 The dates and the editorial language located on the title pages, as well as the absence of a title page on six draft reports, reflect the draft reports were part of a continuing process of revisions generated in advance of the adoption of a final DHS policy. The drafts, to include the title page, reflect the thoughts, recommendations, and opinions of CRCL employees on legal and policy matters concerning SC and statistical monitoring. Release of any draft report, to include the title page, would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes to the records and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and stifle the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within the DHS. Additionally, release of twenty-eight draft versions, all of which differ in content and length, would pose a substantial risk of confusing the public. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 16 of 86 3 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Table of Contents/ Appendix The entries in this row under the column heading “Document Specific Comments” contain the proposed titles for the various chapters (or sections) within each draft report. The proposed chapter titles are followed by corresponding page number, unless otherwise noted. Additionally, this section enumerates proposed materials for inclusion within an appendix followed by the corresponding Doc A: 1 Doc B: 25-6 Doc C: 52-3 Doc D: 83-84 Doc E: 119-20 Doc F: 155-56 Doc G: 200-01 Doc H: 248-49 Doc I: 295-96 Doc J: 342-43 Doc M: 489-90 Doc K: 389-91 Doc L: 439-41 Doc N: 537-39 Docs A, B, and C do not contain an appendix. Docs D and E list materials under consideration for inclusion in appendix as well as redlines. Docs F, G, H, I, J, and M contain entries followed by question mark(s) within brackets (e.g. [??]) and a list of materials under consideration for inclusion in appendix. Doc K contains entries followed by question mark(s) within brackets (e.g. [??]); a list of materials under consideration for inclusion in appendix; redlines; and language strikethroughs. Docs L and N list materials under consideration for The topics under consideration for inclusion within the table of contents/appendix section reflect the thoughts, recommendations, and opinions of CRCL employees as to those topics the drafters believed may have been of interest to DHS senior leadership. The absence of a table of contents in five drafts, the absence of an appendix section in eight drafts, the variations in content and length of the table of contents/appendix section, the comments inserted discussing which topics should be included or omitted, the redlines, the language strikethroughs, the lack of corresponding page numbers, and comments regarding the ordering of topics all reflect that the reports were part of a continuing process of revisions, were predecisional, deliberative, and generated prior to the adoption of a final DHS policy. The release of the draft reports in full or part would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and stifle the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within the DHS. Additionally, release of twenty-eight draft reports which differ in length and content would pose a substantial risk of confusing the public. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 17 of 86 4 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE page number, unless otherwise noted. Doc O: 587-89 Doc R: 748 Doc T: 857-58 Doc U: 912 Doc V: 971 Doc W: 1027 Docs X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3: N/A Doc P: 641-42 Doc Q: 690-92 Doc S: 802 inclusion in appendix; redlines; language strikethroughs; entries with no corresponding page numbers; and comments regarding the availability of proposed appendix materials. Docs O, R, T, U, V, and W contain entries with no corresponding page numbers. Docs X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3 do not contain a table of contents or appendix. Doc P contains entries with no corresponding page numbers and suggestions for the ordering of appendix materials. Docs Q and S contain redlines; language strikethroughs; and entries with no corresponding page numbers. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 18 of 86 5 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Introduction Section The introduction section of each draft report contains a signatory line for the CRCL Officer and a date line. The signatory and date lines are blank on each report, unless otherwise noted. The introduction section in the draft reports: distill and summarize concerns with SC raised by non- federal entities; expresses the opinion of CRCL personnel of factors contributing to the public’s perception of SC; Doc A: 2 Doc B: 27 Doc C: 54 Doc D: 85-6 Doc E: 121-22 Doc F: 157-58 Doc G: 202-03 Doc H: 250-51 Doc I: 297-98 Doc J: 344-45 Doc K: 392-93 Doc L: 442-43 Doc M: 491-92 Doc N: 540-41 Doc O: 590-91 Doc P: 643-44 Doc Q: 693-94 Doc R: 749-50 Doc S: 803-04 Doc T: 859-60 Doc A, B, and C contain no signatory or date lines. Docs D and E contain redlines and there are no signatory or date lines. Docs F, G, H, I, and J are dated June 7, 2011. Docs H, I, and J pagination incorrect. Docs K, L, M, N, O, and P are dated June ___, 2011. Docs M and N contain redlines. Docs K and M pagination incorrect. Doc Q is dated July ___, 2011; contains redlines and language strikethroughs; and identifies language that is inaccurate and explanation as to why language inaccurate. Docs R, S, T, U, and V are dated July ___, 2011. Within the introduction section, the variance in the dates of the draft reports, the variance in length between the draft introduction sections, the absence of signature and date lines, the fact no draft contains the CRCL Officer’s signature, the redlines and language strikethroughs, the editorial comments and edits relating to the insertion and/or deletion of material and the reasoning underlying the comments and edits, the incorrect pagination, the placeholders for information to be inserted in the future, and the notations that additional revisions were needed, all reflect that the reports were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts, to include the introduction section, reflect the thoughts, recommendations, and opinions of CRCL employees as to those topics the drafters believed may have been of interest to DHS senior leadership. The introduction section, in particular, was prepared to provide a summary of the issues and advice contained in the balance of the reports for the consideration of senior DHS leadership. The contents reflect the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that warrant priority due to their importance and relevance in developing the report and supporting the recommendations, proposals, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the draft reports and introduction sections were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Finally, release of the twenty-eight versions or the introduction sections would pose a substantial risk of confusing the public Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 19 of 86 6 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE anticipates timeframes for future DHS activities; summarizes policy-based recommendations for SC; enumerates anticipated future undertakings and influencing factors; proposes institutionalizing particular activities; and offers suggestions for addressing anticipated public perceptions. Doc U: 913-14 Doc V: 972-73 Doc W:1028-29 Doc X: 1082-83 Doc Y: 1111-12 Doc Z: 1138-39 Doc Z2: 1155-56 Doc Z3: 1173-74 Doc R pagination incorrect. Doc W is dated August ___, 2011. Doc X is dated October ___, 2011, and contains placeholder for language to be inserted in future. Docs Y and Z are dated October ___, 2011; contain placeholders for language to be inserted in future; and contain notations that entire section requires revision. Docs Z2 and Z3 are dated October ___, 2011; contain placeholders for language to be inserted in future; contain notations that section requires revision; and comment that estimated figures require revision. and allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made to the drafts and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Summary Section The summary section in the draft reports: discuss potential Docs A, B, C, D, E, X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3: N/A Docs A, B, C, D, E, X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3 do not contain a summary section. Within the summary section, the absence of a summary in ten of the draft reports, the variance in the length and depth of content, the redlines and language strikethroughs, the editorial comments and edits relating to the insertion and/or deletion of Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 20 of 86 7 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE concerns with SC; assess potential concerns and identifies those meriting action; summarize issues discussed in subsequent sections of the draft report; assess pros and cons of SC; make proposals in the areas of oversight, protocols, policy, and DHS component/office resource allocation. Doc F:159-61 Doc G: 204-06 Doc H: 252-54 Doc F contains sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); identifies topics to be updated in future after collaboration with components; contains placeholders for language to be inserted in future; and identifies language requiring revision. Doc G contains sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); redlines; language strikethroughs; identifies topics to be updated in future after collaboration with components; and placeholders for language to be inserted in future. Doc H contains comments questioning the accuracy of information, the reasons and rationales for questioning the accuracy, material and the reasoning underlying the comments and edits, the sentences followed by bracketed question marks, the placeholders for information to be inserted in the future, notations regarding additional revisions, and the questions regarding altering emphasis on topics all reflect that the reports were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts, to include the summary section, were prepared to summarize the issues and advice contained in the balance of the reports for the consideration of senior DHS leadership. The content reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that warrant priority due to their importance and relevance in developing the report and supporting the recommendations, proposals, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the draft reports and summary sections were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Release of the draft reports or the summary section would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 21 of 86 8 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc I: 299-01 Doc J: 346-48 Doc K: 394-97 Doc L: 444-47 and suggestion for resolution; sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]). Doc I contains redlines; language strikethroughs; and sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]). Doc J and K contain redlines; language strikethroughs; sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); and discusses the merits of proposed revised language, the appropriateness of the proposed language within the summary section, and suggestions for placement elsewhere if proposed language adopted. Doc L contains sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]). Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 22 of 86 9 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc M: 493-96 Doc N: 542-45 Doc O: 592-95 Doc P: 645-48 Doc M contains redlines; language strikethroughs; formatting questions; sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); and questions regarding whether particular content should be included. Doc N contains redlines; language strikethroughs; questions regarding altering emphasis on topics within summary section; suggested deletions and reasoning; and sentences followed by question marks within brackets, (e.g. [??]). Doc O contains redlines; language strikethroughs; and question regarding accuracy of information. Doc P contains placeholders for information to be updated and revised in future. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 23 of 86 10 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc Q: 695-98 Doc R: 751-54 Doc S: 805-08 Doc U: 915-18 Doc V: 974-77 Doc T: 861-64 Doc Q contains redlines and language strikethroughs. Doc R contains redlines and language strikethroughs. Docs S, U, and V N/A Doc T contains redlines; language strikethroughs; discussions whether language should be deleted or not; recommendations whether to accept prior edits and reasoning; comments that deleting language may run counter to future plans; reasons for disagreeing with prior edits; recommendations to and reasons for rejecting edits; opinions offered on value of edits; and questions regarding the organization of ideas within summary section. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 24 of 86 11 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc W: 1030-33 Doc W contains redlines and language strikethroughs. Section I Section I of the draft reports: discuss immigration enforcement challenges; interpret statutory language; interpret scope of agreements; discuss anticipated future actions; discuss potential complications impacting SC; compare and contrast agency programs and potential impacts on the programs; discuss challenges associated with data accuracy; Doc A: 2-8 Doc B: 28-35 Doc C: 55-63 Doc A contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future and identifies areas requiring updating. Doc B contains discussion of characterizations made in text and whether language should be edited; identifies language requiring revision and supporting documentation; makes topic reorganization suggestions; and discusses when reviews of other sections will be conducted. Doc C contains suggestions for relocating language to alter emphasis; identifies language requiring revision and supporting documentation; Within Section I, the variance in the length and depth of content, the placeholders for information to be inserted in future, editorial questions and comments, formatting and organization comments, suggested shifts in emphasis, the redlines and language strikethroughs, highlighting areas requiring more fulsome analysis, requests that procedures be clarified, sentences followed by bracketed question marks, questions regarding data accuracy all reflect the reports, to include Section I, were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts and Section I were prepared to discuss enforcement issues within a statutory framework, evaluate potential complications, compare and contrast programs and discuss policy considerations in the context of SC for the consideration of senior DHS leadership. Section I reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that warrant priority due to their importance and relevance in developing the report and supporting the recommendations, proposals, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the reports and Section I were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 25 of 86 12 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE and discuss policy considerations. Doc D: 87-96 Doc E: 123-32 placeholders for language to be inserted in future; and formatting suggestions. Doc D contains redlines; strikethroughs; identifies language requiring revision and supporting documentation; highlights weaknesses in analysis/argument requiring attention; and commentary on word choice. Doc E contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments regarding definitions of language within text; comments regarding SC processes that impact analysis; discussions regarding deleting information; highlights analysis/argument requiring additional editing; highlights changes made to language Release of the drafts or Section I would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 26 of 86 13 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc F: 162-76 Doc G: 207-22 based clarifications of processes; comments regarding word choice; opinions whether to include material based on proposed future activities. Doc F contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future; request that clarification be obtained regarding certain procedures; and sentences followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [?]). Doc G contains suggestion and reasons for changing section title; formatting questions for purposes of (de)emphasis issues; redlines; language strikethroughs; placeholders for information to be inserted after component consultation; sentences followed by question Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 27 of 86 14 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc H: 255-68 Doc I: 302-15 marks within brackets (e.g. [?]); comments that issues require update; questions whether information accurate and suggested sources for resolution of question. Doc H contains language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); redlines; language strikethroughs; formatting suggestions; questions regarding data accuracy; and identifies sentences requiring revision. Doc I contains redlines; language strikethroughs; explanation for word choice edits; questions regarding data accuracy; discussion of issues causing confusion and why; comments suggesting alternate language and reasoning; Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 28 of 86 15 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc J: 349-62 Doc K: 398-411 and suggestions to alter emphasis on issues. Doc J contains redlines; language strikethroughs; identifies new language; discussion whether to further develop particular ideas; and discussion whether to incorporate proposed language. Doc K contains redlines; language strikethroughs; notations that language has been edited; discussion whether to incorporate additional issue and proposed language; formatting suggestions; commentary why analysis in previous versions was flawed; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); questions whether information should be moved for purposes of emphasis; comment Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 29 of 86 16 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc L: 448-60 Doc M: 497-509 Doc N: 546-58 highlighting inconsistencies in analysis requiring resolution through policy; and suggestions for re-writing for improved clarity. Doc L contains language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]) and redlines. Doc M contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments questioning the accuracy of figures; questions regarding statutory language; formatting questions; and question regarding consensus reached in defining terms. Doc N contains redlines; language strikethroughs; questions regarding source and accuracy of figures; identifies issues awaiting feedback; identifies potentially confusing with suggested Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 30 of 86 17 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc O: 596-610 Doc P: 649-61 edit; discussions whether to delete or modify language; discussions regarding word choice; and identifies language that should not have been deleted and reason for opinion. Doc O contains redlines; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); identifies issues currently being vetted; language strikethroughs; identifies redundant material; suggests removal of language; and placeholders for information to possibly be included in future. Doc P contains questions as to the accuracy of information; identifies topics requiring more fulsome understanding by drafters; and identifies topics requiring further Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 31 of 86 18 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc Q: 699-715 Doc R: 755-70 Doc S: 809-25 consultation to ensure accuracy. Doc Q contains redlines; language strikethroughs; identifies topics requiring further research; identifies processes requiring clarification on part of drafters; comments regarding additional data sources; identifies language needing to be qualified; discusses word choice; and poses questions regarding including additional information. Doc R contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future. Doc S contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments regarding accuracy of data calculations; comments regarding availability of data; and comments on Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 32 of 86 19 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc T: 865-80 Doc U: 919-39 Doc V: 978-95 succinctness of ideas being conveyed. Doc T contains comments questioning accuracy of proposed revisions; opinions on deletions; questions inclusion of information; redlines; language strikethroughs; discussions regarding litigation exposure; identifies language requiring further clarification; and questions whether topics should be expanded upon. Doc U contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments regarding the inclusion of information; and questions whether topics should be expanded upon. Doc V contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments that portions of section incomplete; and Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 33 of 86 20 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc W:1034-51 Dox X: 1084-92 Doc Y: 1113-22 Doc Z: 1140 Doc Z2: 1157 Doc Z3: 1175 questions whether topics should be expanded upon. Doc W contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments on why information may become inaccurate and potential impacts; discusses how to couch issues from policy perspective; highlights language requiring additional review and why; explains why revised language more accurate; and questions whether topics should be expanded upon. Doc X contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future. Doc Y contains requests to rephrase language and highlights information requiring updating. Doc Z N/A Doc Z2 and Z3 contain questions regarding Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 34 of 86 21 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE usefulness of inclusion of footnotes and editorial comments that emphasis on topics requires alteration. Section II Section II of the draft reports: distill and summarize concerns raised by non-federal entities with SC; identifies concerns meriting evaluation; offers opinions and justifications for prioritizing concerns; evaluates public affairs efforts; offers legal interpretations; discusses obstacles to data accuracy and quality of data analysis; makes Doc A: 8-15 Doc B: 35-42 Doc C: 63-71 Docs A and B contain recommendations for including citations; placeholders for information to be inserted in future; and placeholders for subsections to be drafted in future. Doc C contains discussions of emphasis to be placed on topics; reminders to include citations; placeholders for information to be inserted in future; questions whether outstanding issues have been sufficiently addressed; and notations regarding cross-referencing materials. Within Section II, the variance in the length and depth of content; the recommendations to include citations; the placeholders for information to be inserted in future; the discussions topic emphasis; the questions regarding whether issues are sufficiently addressed; cross-referencing notations; the redlines; language strikethroughs; discussions regarding information accuracy; the language followed by bracketed question marks; work distribution questions; editorial comments regarding tone of language; editing comments; need to confirm event sequencing; and suggestions to enhance and minimize or delete topics all reflect the reports, to include Section II, were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts and Section II were prepared to summarize concerns raised by non-federal entities; opine on those concerns meriting evaluation; offer opinions on and justification for how concerns should be prioritized; evaluate DHS efforts; offer legal interpretations; discuss obstacles statistical analysis; make policy suggestions; and discuss factors potentially influencing data and statistics for the consideration of senior DHS leadership. Section II reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that warrant priority due to their importance Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 35 of 86 22 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE policy and public messaging suggestions; and discusses factors and obstacles potentially influencing data and statistics. Doc D: 96-106 Doc E: 133-42 Doc F: 177-83 Doc G: 222-29 Docs D and E contain redlines; language strikethroughs; placeholders for information to be inserted in future; questions whether to add topics; and questions posed regarding accuracy of information. Doc F contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future; suggestions to cross-reference materials; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); and notations to confirm accuracy of language. Doc G contains redlines; language strikethroughs; discussions regarding sources; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [??]); issues requiring follow-up; suggestions for work and relevance in developing the report and supporting the recommendations, proposals, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the reports and Section II were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Release of the drafts or Section II would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 36 of 86 23 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc H: 268-74 Doc I: 315-21 Doc J: 362-68 Doc K: 411-17 distribution within CRCL; requests for feedback as to tone of language; and notation to confirm information described in text. Doc. H contains notations that sentences require editing; redlines and language strikethroughs; request to confirm sequencing of events described in text; and comments questioning the accuracy of particular language. Docs I and J contain redlines; language strikethroughs; request to confirm sequencing of events described in text; and comments questioning the accuracy of particular language. Doc K contains redlines; language strikethroughs; suggestion to further develop topic; and Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 37 of 86 24 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc L: 461-67 Doc M: 509-15 Doc N: 559-65 Doc O: 610-16 Doc P: 662-68 suggestion to delete material unless additional clarification can be obtained. Doc L contains redlines; language strikethroughs and request to confirm sequencing of events described in text. Doc M contains redlines; highlights inaccuracies requiring revision; language strikethroughs; and questions whether particular information should be referenced. Doc N contains redlines; opinions on edits made by colleagues; highlights inaccuracies requiring revision; and requests confirmation of sequencing of events described in text. Docs O and P contain redlines and requests confirmation of Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 38 of 86 25 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc Q: 715-21 Doc R: 770-76 Doc S: 825-31 Doc T: 880-86 Doc U: 939-45 Doc V: 995-1001 Doc W: 1051-57 Doc X: 1092-96 Doc Y: 1122-33 Doc Z: 1140-42 Doc Z2: 1157-59 Doc Z3: 1175-77 sequencing of events described in text. Doc Q contains redlines; language strikethroughs; and recommendations to delete language. Docs R, S, T, U, and V N/A Doc W contains comment regarding altering emphasis of material. Docs X and Y contain notations that data must be updated; bracketed language requiring follow-up; and editorial suggestions to rephrase language. Doc Z: N/A Docs Z2 and Z3 contain redlines; language strikethroughs; and opinions on word choice. Section III Section III of the draft reports set Doc A: 15-21 Doc B: 42-8 Docs A, B, and C contain placeholders for While not an exhaustive recitation, within Section III, the variance in the length and depth of content; the absence of a Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 39 of 86 26 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE forth proposals and recommendations involving civil rights issues CRCL believes worthy of further consideration by senior DHS leadership. Section III contains proposals, recommendations and cautions for the consideration of senior DHS leadership on the following topics: intra-agency cooperation; automating processes; data integrity; investigative efforts; possible ways to resolve data anomalies; Doc C: 71-9 Doc D: 106-16 Doc E: 142-52 Doc F: 184-95 information to be inserted in future; comments regarding inclusion of additional content; and indications drafters awaiting additional information. Docs D and E contain redlines; language strikethroughs; highlights language requiring revision; discusses accuracy of language; questions whether emphasis on topics should be altered; and placeholders for information to be inserted in future. Doc F contains placeholders for language to be inserted in future; language followed by question marks in brackets (e.g. [??]); identifies ideas requiring further development; proposed language for Section III in some drafts; the placeholders for information to be inserted in future; comments additional content; indications drafters awaiting additional information; redlines and language strikethroughs; comments regarding revisions and accuracy of language; questions regarding topic emphasis; the language followed by bracketed question marks; editorial comments; discussion of implications of future policy decisions; questions involving resource allocation; and redundant proposals all reflect the reports and Section III were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts and Section III were prepared for the purpose of setting forth proposals, recommendations and cautions involving civil rights issues in connection with SC which in the opinion of CRCL were worthy of further consideration by senior DHS leadership in the areas of intra-agency cooperation; automating processes; data integrity; investigative efforts; resolving data anomalies; protocols; investigative strategies; plans for future briefings; policy recommendations; and suggestions involving public affairs concerns. Section III reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that warrant priority due to their importance and relevance in developing the report and supporting the proposals, recommendations, cautions, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the reports and Section III were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 40 of 86 27 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE proposed inter- agency protocols; investigative strategies; plans for future briefings; proposed policy recommendations ; and public affairs suggestions. Doc G: 229-42 Doc H: 274-87 consideration; topics requiring further component collaboration; and indications language must be checked for accuracy. Doc G contains redlines; language strikethroughs; questions appropriateness of topics within the section; identifies edited language and reason for edits; questions arrangement of topics; indicates language requiring confirmation; language followed by question marks in brackets (e.g. [??]); requests that ideas be clarified; and placeholders for language to be inserted in future. Doc H contains placeholders for topics to be referenced in future within this section or elsewhere in the Release of the drafts or Section III would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 41 of 86 28 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc I: 321-34 document; redlines; highlights quotes requiring confirmation; comments vague language and suggestions for rephrasing; suggestion to and reasons for including additional topics within draft; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [?]); and questions whether current language will lead to misunderstandings with request for colleague feedback. Doc I contains placeholders for particular topics to be referenced within section at a later date or elsewhere in the report; redlines; highlights quotes requiring confirmation; comments that future policy decisions may make suggested language unnecessary; suggestions Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 42 of 86 29 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc J: 368-81 Doc K: 417-31 to resolve outstanding uncertainties; request for status of possible policy changes; and suggestion that topics be developed further. Doc J contains redlines; indicates quotes requiring confirmation; comments that future policy decisions may make suggested language unnecessary; suggestion to suspend current course of action until additional information obtained; placeholders for language be inserted in future; language strikethroughs; and potentially problematic language highlighted with proposed alternative. Doc K contains redlines; language strikethroughs; highlights topics that may not be ripe for discussion; highlights language Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 43 of 86 30 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc L: 467-80 Doc M: 515-29 moved to other sections of draft report; statement that reviewer will follow up on language missing from draft; and questions follow up conversations on particular topics have taken place. Doc L contains redlines; language strikethroughs; indications that language must be confirmed; placeholders for topics to be included in future; language followed by question marks within brackets (e.g. [?]); and suggestion to further develop idea in the event particular course of action pursued. Doc M contains redlines; language strikethroughs; highlights confusing language; highlights language causing mischaracterizations; identifies formatting Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 44 of 86 31 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc N: 565-78 issues; questions how resources will be prioritized; comments that language needs to be confirmed; questions whether language should be included in other DHS documents; questions regarding accuracy of information based on outstanding issues; highlights inconsistencies between draft sections; placeholders for language to be inserted in future; and suggestion to further develop idea in the event particular course of action pursued. Doc N contains redlines; language strikethroughs; comments on distinctions between draft versions with opinion as to which version most accurate; identifies potentially confusing language; makes formatting Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 45 of 86 32 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc O: 616-33 suggestions; solicits colleagues opinions; comment on language requiring confirmation; questions how terms defined; suggests revision based on resolution of issues unrelated to SC; identifies language causing concern for drafters with suggested alternative; placeholders for language to be inserted in future; and identifies language edited by colleague. Doc O contains redlines; language strikethroughs; formatting comments; retitled subheadings; proposals duplicated multiple times within section; comment that language must be confirmed; placeholders for insertion of language in the future; language followed by question Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 46 of 86 33 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc P: 668-82 Doc Q: 721-38 Doc R: 776-92 marks within brackets (e.g. [?]); and suggestion to further develop idea in the event particular course of action pursued. Doc P contains notations that topics must be reordered; poses question regarding expanding topic; suggestion to further develop idea in the event particular course of action pursued; and suggestions to expand topics of discussion. Doc Q contains redlines; language strikethroughs; suggested future areas of inquiry based on present assumptions with request for colleague feedback; comment questioning accuracy of language; and number of recommendations increased. Doc R contains formatting questions. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 47 of 86 34 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc S: 831-47 Doc T: 886-902 Doc U: 945-61 Doc V: 1001-17 Doc W: 1057-73 Doc X: 1096-1107 Doc Y: N/A Doc S contains suggestion to better incorporate ideas into section. Doc T contains redlines; language strikethroughs; and opinions on edits made by other reviewers. Docs U and V N/A Doc W contains redlines; language strikethroughs; identifies topics to be expanded upon if other events occur in the future; and number of recommendations reduced. Doc X contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future; and comments that language will require updating; Doc Y does not contain a section dedicated to proposals and recommendations. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 48 of 86 35 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc Z: 1142-52 Doc Z2: 1159-69 Doc Z3: 1177-87 Doc Z contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future. Docs Z2 and Z3 contain redlines; language strikethroughs; identifies redundant language; and conveys preferences relayed by colleagues. Section IV Discusses concerns raised by non-federal entities with the SCP that CRCL believes merit attention in addition to those previously discussed in Section III. Identifies and analyzes less pressing issues associated with the SC. Doc A: N/A Doc B: 49-51 Doc C: 79-82 Doc A does not contain a section dedicated to concerns raised in addition to those discussed in Section III. Doc B contains notation that citations must be inserted; identifies suggestions that may not be necessary based on future events; Doc C contains notations that language may need to be revised or narrowed; identifies citations needed to be inserted; questions utility of proposed suggestion; and identifies While not an exhaustive recitation, within Section IV, the variance in the length and depth of content; the absence in drafts of a section dedicated to additional concerns to those discussed in the previous section; uncertainty regarding inclusion of topics due to future events; suggestions for revisions; recommendations to expand ideas; redlines and language strikethroughs; discussions on the utility of broaching topics; suggested future areas of focus; and questions regarding direction of argument all reflect that the reports and Section IV were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts and Section IV were prepared for the purpose of setting forth proposals, recommendations and cautions involving civil rights issues in connection with SC which in the opinion of CRCL were worthy of further consideration by senior DHS leadership that were not raised in the previous section. Section IV reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 49 of 86 36 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc D: 116-18 Doc E: 152-54 Doc F: 195-98 Doc G: 242-45 concepts requiring further development. Docs D and E contain redlines and language strikethroughs; identifies language requiring revision or deletion; and solicits opinions of colleagues on the utility of addressing particular concerns. Doc F contains instructions to provide further explanation and materials that can be utilized to do so; suggestion to delete material; and request for suggestions to resolve outstanding issue. Doc G contains redlines and language strikethroughs; suggestion to delete material; and request that colleagues confirm characterization of assertion. personnel as to those facts, issues, and advice that additionally warrant consideration due to their importance and relevance in developing the report and supporting the proposals, recommendations, cautions, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the reports and Section IV were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Release of the drafts or Section IV would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 50 of 86 37 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc H: 287-89 Doc I: 334-37 Doc J: 381-84 Doc K: 431-34 Doc L: 481-83 Doc M: 529-32 Docs H and I contain suggestion to delete material and questions who will provide missing language. Doc J contains suggestion to delete material; redlines and language strikethroughs; suggested future areas to focus on; and questions who will provide missing language. Doc K contains questions regarding direction of argument; redlines and language strikethroughs; highlights language requiring additional consideration with proposed course of action; and suggestion that topic be deleted from draft due to change in events. Doc L highlights topic warranting legal consideration. Doc M questions the accuracy of assertion Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 51 of 86 38 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc N: 579-81 Doc O: 633-35 Doc P: 682-84 Doc Q: 738-41 Doc R: 792-95 Doc S: 848-50 Doc T: 903-05 Doc U: 961-63 Doc V: 1017-19 Doc W: 1074-76 Docs X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3: N/A based on potential changes and highlights topic warranting legal consideration. Doc N highlights topic warranting legal consideration. Docs O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W: N/A Docs X, Y, Z, Z2, and Z3 do not contain a section dedicated to concerns raised in addition to those discussed in Section III. Section V Provides summary of issues presented within draft reports and makes policy suggestions. Docs A, B, C, D, and E: N/A Doc F: 198-99 Docs A, B, C, D, and E do not contain a conclusory section. Doc F contains notation that section to be written in future followed by a placeholder for an While not an exhaustive recitation, within Section V, the variance in the length, content and depth of content; the absence in drafts of a section dedicated to summarizing the issues presented and policy suggestions; the placeholders for information to be inserted in the future; the redlines and language strikethroughs; and the highlighted material requiring Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 52 of 86 39 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc G: 245-47 Doc H: 289-94 Doc I: 336-41 Doc J: 384-88 Doc K: 434-38 appendix section with a list of documents under consideration for inclusion therein. Doc. G contains redlines; language strikethroughs; placeholder for an appendix section with a list of documents under consideration for inclusion therein. Doc H, I, J contain placeholder for an appendix section with a list of documents under consideration for inclusion therein and endnotes with placeholders for information to be included in the future. Doc K contains redlines; language strikethroughs; placeholder for an appendix section with a list of documents under consideration for inclusion therein and consultation with agency counsel all reflect that the reports and Section V were part of a continuing process of revisions. The drafts and Section V were prepared for the purpose of summarizing the issues presented and policy suggestions which, in the opinion of CRCL, were worthy of inclusion within the report and for further consideration by senior DHS leadership. Section V reflects the exercise in judgment by CRCL personnel in distilling those facts, issues, and advice developed in the report that supported the proposals, recommendations, cautions, and opinions contained therein. Consequently, the reports and Section V were predecisional, deliberative, and do not represent the adoption of a final DHS policy. Release of the drafts or Section V would not only pose a substantial risk of confusing the public but their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made therein and thereby intrude upon the editorial process and reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning resulting in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within DHS. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 53 of 86 40 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc L: 483-88 Doc M: 532-36 Doc N: 581-86 Doc O: 635-40 Doc T: 905-10 Doc P: 684-89 Doc Q: 741-46 highlights issues that may be resolved in the future. Doc L contains redlines; language strikethroughs, no appendix portion, and comments that drafters awaiting additional source material. Doc M contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future and placeholder for an appendix section with a list of documents under consideration for inclusion therein. Docs N, O, and T contain no appendix section and endnotes containing redlines and language strikethroughs. Doc P contains no appendix section and placeholders for information to be inserted in future. Doc Q contain no appendix section and Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 54 of 86 41 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc R: 795-800 Doc S: 850-55 Doc Z: 1152-54 Doc U: 964-69 Doc V: 1020-25 Doc W: 1076-81 Doc X: 1107-10 Doc Y: 1134-37 Doc Z2: 1169-72 Doc Z3: 1187-90 redlines and language strikethroughs. Docs R, S, and Z: N/A Docs U, V, and W do not contain an appendix and highlights material requiring consultation with agency counsel. Docs X and Y contain placeholder for conclusion to be inserted in future, placeholders of endnotes to be inserted in future, and highlights material requiring consultation with agency counsel. Docs Z2 and Z3 do not contain an appendix and endnotes contain redlines and language strikethroughs. Document Headers Entries in this row under the column heading “Document Specific Doc A: 1-24 Doc A: INITIAL, PARTIAL, ROUGH DRAFT DELIBERATIVE//FOUO //MAY CONTAIN LAW Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 55 of 86 42 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Comments” reflect the language found in the header section on each page of each respective document, unless otherwise noted. Doc B: 25-51 Doc C: 52-82 Doc D: 83-118 Doc E: 119-54 ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE MATERIAL – May 18, 2011 Doc B: SECOND DRAFT DELIBERATIVE//FOUO //MAY CONTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE MATERIAL – May 25, 201 (sic) Doc C: THIRD DRAFT DELIBERATIVE//FOUO //MAY CONTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE MATERIAL – May 25, 201 (sic) Doc D: FOURTH DRAFT//May 27, 2011 DELIBERATIVE//FOUO //MAY CONTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE MATERIAL Doc E: FOURTH DRAFT//May 27, 2011 DELIBERATIVE//FOUO //MAY CONTAIN LAW Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 56 of 86 43 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc F: 155-99 Doc G: 200-47 Doc H: 248-94 Doc I: 295-41 Doc J: 342-88 Doc K: 389-438 Doc M: 489-536 Doc N: 537-86 Doc F: FIFTH DRAFT//May 29, 2011// DELIBERATIVE//FOUO Doc G: 5/31 SS redline to 5/30 draft//DELIBERATIVE// FOUO Doc H: 5/31 draft//DELIBERATIVE// FOUO Doc I: 6/1 draft//DELIBERATIVE// FOUO Doc J: 6/2 draft//DELIBERATIVE// FOUO Doc K: Draft 8: June 7, 2011//DELIBERATIVE// FOUO Doc M: Draft 8: June 7, 2011 // DELIBERATIVE//FOUO Doc N: DRAFT 10-JUNE 9, 2011 – DELIBERATIVE (First page only) Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 57 of 86 44 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) DOCUMENT SECTION SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT SECTION CONTENT RESPECTIVE DOCUMENT AND BATES- NUMBER(S) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLICATION OF 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Doc O: 587-640 Doc P: 641-89 Doc Q: 690-746 Doc R: 747-800 Doc S: 801-55 Doc T: 856-910 Doc U: 911-69 Doc V: 970-1025 Doc W: 1026-81 Doc L: 439-88 Doc X: 1082-110 Doc Y: 1111-37 Doc Z: 1138-54 Doc Z2: 1155-72 Doc Z3: 1173-90 Doc O: DRAFT 12 – JUNE 10, 2011 – DELIBERATIVE Doc P: DRAFT 12 – JUNE 10, 2012 – DELIBERATIVE (First page only) Doc Q: DRAFT 20 – JULY 18, 2011 – DELIBERATIVE (First page only) (Header on remaining pages of draft report: DRAFT: DELIBERATIVE) Docs R, S, T, U, V, W: DRAFT: DELIBERATIVE Docs L, X, Y, Z, Z2, Z3: No headers on any page of draft reports. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 58 of 86 45 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) The draft tables, described below, were withheld in their entirety under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5) under the deliberative process privilege. The information and data contained within the tables were distilled from a larger group of information and data (the raw data having been released to Plaintiffs prior to the initiation of litigation) and therefore reflect the exercise in judgement by subordinate DHS personnel as to the information and data that warrant priority due to its importance and relevance in drafting the reports. The information and data contained in the tables served as a basis for, and supported the recommendations contained within, the drafts. In short, releasing the information and data within the tables would reveal the recommendations, proposals, cautions, and opinions contained within the reports. For the foregoing reasons, the tables are deliberative, predecisional, and do not represent final agency policy. Additionally, the variance in the content of the tables, the fact some tables were removed from numerous versions, the comments regarding data accuracy concerns, the fact many figures are estimates, the fact some figures are followed by bracketed question marks, the redlines and language strikethroughs, discussions of inferences that could be drawn from the data, and the fact some figures are based on a sampling of data all reflect a continuing process of revisions and iterations in the deliberative process. Their release would allow the public to determine the substance of the proposed and adopted changes made to the drafts thereby intruding on the editorial process and would reveal the drafters’ chain of reasoning. This would result in the stifling of the exchange of ideas and candid discussions within the agency and drafters would be inhibited in exchanging ideas. Moreover, release of the tables would pose a substantial risk of confusing the public. Finally, because the facts and data contained within the tables are so mixed in with the balance of the deliberative material in the reports (which serve to summarize issues and contain recommendations and opinions for the consideration of senior DHS leadership) it is not possible to release any meaningful portions of the draft reports or tables. Description 1: Draft tables showing aliens as a share of removals and returns. Aliens assigned to one of four categories, or levels, depending upon criminal history. Drafts contain notations that portions of tables contain duplicate data and that data figures are estimates. Drafts indicate data inaccurate because aliens not necessarily placed in correct category due to data lags and inconsistent data reporting of criminal histories by law enforcement agencies, thereby impacting statistics. Drafts contain discussions of whether portions of tables require updates and retroactive tabulations based on new information. Drafts contain figures followed by question marks in brackets, e.g. [?]. Draft tables contain redlines and language strikethroughs. Draft tables comment on fact data within rows not accurate and consequently rows cannot be compared. Drafts include comments that non-ICE data included within earlier versions of tables. Document U contains two versions of same table. Doc O contains two versions of the table with varying calculations. The tables showing aliens as a share of removals and returns are located on the following pages of each respective document: Doc A: 7; Doc B: 34; Doc C: 62; Doc D: 94; Doc E: 130; Doc F: 170; Doc G: 215; Doc H: 262; Doc I: 309; Doc J: 356; Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 59 of 86 46 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc K: 405; Doc L: 450; Doc M: 499; Doc N: 548; Doc O: 598; Doc P: 651; Doc Q: 702; Doc R: 757; Doc S: 811; Doc T: 867; Doc U: 922, 923; Doc V: 980, Doc W: 1036; Doc X: 1085; Docs Y through Z3 do not contain such tables. Description 2: Draft tables generated to estimate number of aliens not placed within the correct category based on criminal history at time of removal. Estimates are based on a sampling of files. Drafts reflect estimates based on CRCL’s understanding of another component’s data entry process. Draft tables contain redlines and language strikethroughs. Drafts indicate data inaccurate because aliens not necessarily placed in correct category due to data lags and inconsistent data reporting of criminal histories by law enforcement agencies, thereby impacting statistics. Drafts contain discussions of whether different data should be utilized to generate an estimate. The tables generated to estimate the number of aliens placed in the wrong category based on criminal history at time of removal are located on the following pages of each respective document: Doc A: 14; Doc B: 41; Doc C: 61, 69, 70; Doc D: 93, 103, 104; Doc E: 129, 139, 140; Doc F: 168, 175; Doc G: 213, 220; Doc H: 260, 266; Doc I: 307, 313; Doc J: 354, 360; Doc K: 403, 409; Doc L: 454, 459; Doc M: 503, 508; Doc N: 552, 557; Doc O: 602, 607; Doc P: 659; Doc Q: 712, 713; Doc R: 767, 768; Doc S: 822, 823; Doc T: 877, 878; Doc U: 934, 936; Doc V: 991, 992; Doc W: 1047, 1048; Doc X: 1095; Doc Y: 1121; Docs Z, Z2, Z3 contain no such tables. Description 3: Draft tables depicting that portion of Secure Communities enforcement activity dedicated exclusively to misdemeanants. Tables contain language strikethroughs and redlines. Drafts discuss inferences that could be drawn from the data. Drafts contain notations that figures drawn from flawed conviction data. Drafts contain notations that misdemeanant figures are inaccurate because felony and/or additional misdemeanor convictions were not entered into federal rap sheets by non-DHS agencies. The tables depicting the portion of Secure Communities enforcement activity dedicated exclusively to misdemeanants are located on the following pages of each respective document: Doc P: 661; Doc Q: 714; Doc R: 769; Doc S: 824; Doc T: 879; Doc U: 938; Doc V: 994; Doc W: 1050; Docs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, X, Y, Z, Z2, Z3 do not contain such tables. Description 4: Draft table depicting criminal aliens as a share of removals and returns. Tables contain language that data and percentages reflected in table are inaccurate due to data lags and inconsistent data reporting of criminal histories by law enforcement agencies. Tables contain redlines and language strikethroughs. Docs U, V, W contain alternate versions of same table. The tables depicting criminal aliens as a share of removals and returns are located on the following pages of each respective document: Doc D: 96, Doc E: 132; Doc F: 173; Doc G: 218; Doc H: 264; Doc I: 311; Doc J: 358; Doc K: 407; Doc L: 457; Doc M: 506; Doc N: 555; Doc O: 605; Doc P: 657; Doc Q: 709; Doc R: 764; Doc S: 819; Doc T: 874; Doc U: 931, 932; Doc V: 988; Doc W: 1044; Doc X: 1092; Doc Y: 1119; Docs A, B, C, Z, Z2, Z3 do not contain such tables. Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 60 of 86 B Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 61 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation for withholding in full forty iterations of a draft report related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). Within this index, each of the forty iterations of the draft report is referred to by an assigned document number – 1 through 40. Bates numbers were applied from page 1 through 1127. Thus, the first page of document 1 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 40 is numbered “1127.” This index lists the sections of the draft report, summarizes the contents of the section, identifies the document and bates numbers of the respective section, and sets forth additional section specific comments, if any. The final row of the index contains the language found in the headers and footers, as well as the watermarks, place on the draft report. REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS Title Page Not Applicable Doc 1, 1 Doc 2, 33 Doc 3, 58 Doc 4, 84 Doc 5, 110 Doc 6, 136 Doc 7, 162 Doc 8, 188 Doc 9, 217 Doc 10, 245 Doc 11, 274 Doc 12, 306 Doc 13, 338 Doc 14, 370 Doc 15, 403 Doc 16, 435 Doc 17, 467 Doc 18, 499 Doc 19, 532 Doc 20, 565 Doc 21, 599 Doc 22, 632 Doc 23, 664 Doc 24, 696 Dates on Title Pages Doc 1 “June [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 5/23/2013” Docs 2-3, 38 “January ?? __, 2013” Docs 4-9 “April ?? __, 2013” Docs 10-16 “May [XX], 2013” Docs 17-18 “July [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 6/11/2013” Docs 19, 21 “July [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 7.2/2013” Doc 20 “July [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 6/117.2/2013” Docs 22-23 “July [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 7.2/30/2013” Doc 24 “August [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 8/1/2013” Doc 25 “August [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 8/21/2013” Docs 26-27 “August [XX], 2013” and “DRAFT as of 8/22/2013” Docs 28-34, 39-40 “November ?? __, 2012” Docs 35-37 “December ?? __, 2012” Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 62 of 86 2 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 25, 728 Doc 26, 758 Doc 27, 788 Doc 28, 818 Doc 29, 836 Doc 30, 854 Doc 31, 878 Doc 32, 903 Doc 33, 929 Doc 34, 955 Doc 35, 982 Doc 36, 1010 Doc 37, 1036 Doc 38, 1066 Doc 39, 1091 Doc 40, 1109 Table of Contents This section contains the titles of the proposed chapters (or sections) within the draft report. Doc 1, 2-3 Doc 2, 34-35 Doc 3, 59-60 Doc 4, 85-86 Doc 5, 111-112 Doc 6, 137-138 Doc 7, 163-164 Doc 8, 189-190 Doc 9, 218-219 Doc 10, 246-247 Doc 11, 275-276 Doc 12, 307-308 Doc 13, 339-340 Doc 14, 371-372 Doc 15, 404-405 Doc 16, 436-437 Doc 17, 468-469 Doc 18, 500-501 Doc 19, 533-534 Doc 20, 566-567 Doc 1 marked “DRAFT as of 5/23/2013” with entries followed by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Docs 2, 9 contain editing comments, formatting errors, and entries with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Doc 3 contains editing comments, formatting errors, entries with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Docs 4-8 contain editing comments, formatting errors, entries with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 10 contains entries with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and redlines and language strikethroughs Docs 11-16 contain entries with a bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Docs 17-18 marked “DRAFT as of 5/23/2013” with entries followed by a bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Docs 19, 21 marked “DRAFT as of 7/2/2013” with entries preceded by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Doc 20 marked “DRAFT as of 6/11/2013” with entries preceded by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Docs 22-23 marked “DRAFT as of 7.2/30/2013” with entries preceded by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 63 of 86 3 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 21, 600-601 Doc 22, 633-634 Doc 23, 665-666 Doc 24, 697-698 Doc 25, 729 Doc 26, 759 Doc 27, 789 Doc 28, 819 Doc 29, 837 Doc 30, 855-856 Doc 31, 879-880 Doc 32, 904-905 Doc 33, 930-931 Doc 34, 956-957 Doc 35, 983-1127 Doc 36, 1011-1012 Doc 37, 1037-1038 Doc 38, 1067-1068 Doc 39, 1092 Doc 40, 1110 Doc 24 marked “DRAFT as of 8/1/2013” with entries preceded by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Doc 25 marked “DRAFT as of 8/21/2013” Docs 26-27 marked “DRAFT as of 8/22/2013” Docs 28-29, 39-40 no additional section specific comments Docs 30-35 contain redlines and entries preceded with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Doc 36 contains entries preceded with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and editorial comments regarding formatting Doc 37 contains entries preceded with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???],” editorial comments regarding formatting, redlines, and language strikethroughs Doc 38 contains entries preceded with bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???],” editorial comments regarding formatting, and formatting errors I This section summarizes the challenges faced with prior statistical methodology efforts and summarizes and proposes alternative statistical metrics. Doc 1, 4-5 Docs 2-9, 28-40 N/A Doc 10, 248 Doc 11, 277 Doc 12, 309-310 Doc 13, 341-342 Doc 14, 373-374 Doc 15, 406-407 Doc 16, 438-439 Doc 17, 470-471 Doc 18, 502-503 Doc 19, 535-536 Doc 20, 568-569 Doc 21, 602-603 Doc 22, 635-636 Doc 1 marked “DRAFT as of 5/23/2013” Docs 2-9, 28-40 do not contain a Section I Doc 10 contains placeholder for language to be inserted in future Docs 11-12, 16-17, 26-27 no additional section specific comments Docs 13-14, 18, 20 contain redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 15 contains editorial comments regarding word choice Docs 19, 21 contain redlines and numbers are assigned to each line of text Docs 22-24 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments regarding stylist edits and identifying text requiring revisions once additional work completed, and numbers are assigned to each line of text Doc 25 identifies text requiring revisions once additional work completed Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 64 of 86 4 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 23, 667-668 Doc 24, 699-700 Doc 25, 730-731 Doc 26, 760-761 Doc 27, 790-791 II This section summarizes statistical monitoring efforts to date, identifies challenges incurred in prior efforts, and summarizes the contents of the balance of the report. Doc 1, 5-7 Doc 2, 36-37 Doc 3, 61-62 Doc 4, 87-88 Doc 5, 113-114 Doc 6, 139-140 Doc 7, 165-166 Doc 8, 191-192 Doc 9, 220-221 Doc 10, 248-250 Doc 11, 278-279 Doc 12, 310-312 Doc 13, 342-344 Doc 14, 374-376 Doc 15, 407-409 Doc 16, 439-441 Doc 17, 471-473 Doc 18, 503-505 Doc 19, 536-538 Doc 20, 569-571 Doc 21, 603-605 Doc 22, 636-637 Doc 23, 668-670 Doc 24, 700-702 Doc 25, 731-733 Doc 26, 761-763 Doc 27, 791-793 Doc 28, 820-821 Doc 29, 838-839 Doc 30, 857-858 Doc 31, 881-882 Docs 1-3 contain editorial comments regarding topics for inclusion/exclusion, language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Docs 4-10 contain editorial comments regarding topics for inclusion/exclusion and revisions, language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 11 contains language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and redlines and language strikethroughs Docs 12-13, 16-17 contain language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Doc 14 contains editorial comments regarding word choice and revisions, language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Doc 15 contains editorial comments regarding organization of concepts, redlines and language strikethroughs, and language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” Docs 18, 20 contain language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 19 numbers were assigned to each line of text Doc 21-22 contain language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???]” and numbers are assigned to each line of text Docs 23-24 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and numbers are assigned to each line of text Docs 25-27, 39-40 no additional section specific comments Docs 28-29 contain editorial comments regarding in/exclusion of material Docs 30-32, 34-35, 37 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???],” and editorial comments regarding inclusion of additional topics and supplemental materials Doc 33 contains redlines, language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???],” and editorial comments regarding inclusion of additional topics and supplemental materials Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 65 of 86 5 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 32, 906-907 Doc 33, 932-933 Doc 34, 958-959 Doc 35, 985-986 Doc 36, 1013-1014 Doc 37, 1039-1040 Doc 38, 1069-1070 Doc 39, 1093 Doc 40, 1111 Doc 36, 38 contains language followed by bracketed question marks, i.e. “[???],” and editorial comments regarding inclusion of additional topics and supplemental materials III This section discusses types and sources of data as well as criteria for the use of said data in statistical monitoring efforts. Doc 1, 7-10 Doc 2, 37-41 Doc 3, 62-66 Doc 4, 89-93 Doc 5, 115-119 Doc 6, 141-145 Doc 7, 167-171 Doc 8, 193-197 Doc 9, 222-225 Doc 10, 250-253 Doc 11, 280-283 Doc 12, 312-315 Doc 13, 344-347 Doc 14, 376-380 Doc 15, 409-412 Doc 16, 441-444 Doc 17, 473-476 Doc 18, 505-509 Doc 19, 538-542 Doc 20, 571-575 Doc 21, 605-609 Doc 22, 638-643 Doc 23, 670-674 Doc 24, 702-706 Doc 25, 733-737 Doc 26, 763-767 Doc 27, 793-797 Docs 1, 11-12, 15-17, 25-27, 40 no additional section specific comments Doc 2 contains editorial comments regarding necessary revisions, the unavailability of information, the inclusion/exclusion of content, editing suggestions, requests for other reviewers to address topics, and word choice explanations Docs 3-8 contain editorial comments regarding necessary revisions, the unavailability of information, the inclusion/exclusion of content, editing suggestions, requests for other reviewers to address topics, word choice explanations along with redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 9 contains editorial comments regarding information for inclusion, requests to other editors to review particular portions, clarifications of text and placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 10 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding the updating of information, explanations for revised material, and the relocation of information for emphasis Doc 13 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, placeholders for information to be inserted in future and editorial comments explaining the addition of language, requesting clarifications, questioning the significance of language and suggestions for clarification Doc 14 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding clarity of concept, requests for suggested improvements, and identifying confusing language Docs 18, 20 contain redlines and language strikethroughs Docs 19, 21 contain redlines Docs 22-24 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments to check accuracy of information Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 66 of 86 6 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 28, 821-825 Doc 29, 839-843 Doc 30, 858-862 Doc 31, 882-886 Doc 32, 908-912 Doc 33, 933-937 Doc 34, 960-964 Doc 35, 987-991 Doc 36, 1014-1018 Doc 37, 1041-1045 Doc 38, 1070-1074 Doc 39, 1093-1097 Doc 40, 1111-1113 Docs 28-29 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future and language followed by bracketed question mark, i.e. “[?]” Docs 30-31, 33 contain redlines and editorial comments regarding whether to insert addition information and to clarify language within text of draft report Docs 32, 34-35 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments regarding whether to insert additional information and to clarify language within text of draft report, and placeholders for subsections to be inserted in future Docs 36, 38 contain editorial comments regarding need to revise information, whether to insert additional information, discussions regarding the availability of information, and clarifying comments for subsequent reviewers Doc 37 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments regarding need to revise information, whether to insert additional information, discussions regarding the availability of information, clarifying comments for subsequent reviewers, and placeholders for subsections to be inserted in future Doc 39 contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future IV This section discusses formulas for calculating an IDENT match rate metric, how the metric may be used for comparative purposes, the limitations of and the reasons for the limitations on the metric, and alternatives for consideration. Doc 1, 10-19 Doc 2, 41-45 Doc 3, 66-71 Doc 4, 93-97 Doc 5, 119-124 Doc 6, 145-150 Doc 7, 171-176 Doc 8, 197-202 Doc 9, 226-231 Doc 10, 254-262 Doc 11, 283-292 Doc 12, 315-324 Doc 13, 347-356 Doc 14, 380-389 Doc 15, 412-421 Doc 16, 444-453 Doc 17, 476-485 Doc 18, 509-518 Doc 19, 542-551 Doc 20, 575-584 Docs 1, 16-17, 21, 25-27, 40 no additional section specific comments Docs 2-3, 15, 16 contain editorial comments regarding citations Docs 4-8 contain editorial comments regarding citations and redlines and language strikethroughs Doc 9 contains editorial comments regarding citations, notations that missing material will be inserted at later date, and that information in present draft requires updating Doc 10 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments on significance of language, notations that additional information is being sought to complete blank portions within draft, and identifies portions of draft requiring further consultation Doc 11 contains editorial comments on significance of language in draft and comments that additional research is required Doc 12 contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 13 contains redlines and editorial comments about word choice, poses questions regarding the inclusion of particular topics, formatting questions, and placeholders for information to be inserted in the future Doc 14 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and placeholders for information to be inserted in future Docs 15, 18, 20 contain redlines and language strikethroughs Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 67 of 86 7 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 21, 609-618 Doc 22, 643-651 Doc 23, 675-684 Doc 24, 707-716 Doc 25, 737-746 Doc 26, 767-776 Doc 27, 797-806 Doc 28, 825-829 Doc 29, 843-847 Doc 30, 862-867 Doc 31, 886-891 Doc 32, 912-916 Doc 33, 937-942 Doc 34, 964-968 Doc 35, 991-996 Doc 36, 1018-1023 Doc 37, 1045-1050 Doc 38, 1074-1078 Doc 39, 1097-1101 Doc 40, 1123-1127 Doc 19 contains notations that multiple subsections under revision Doc 22 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments regarding information to be included in future, and placeholders for information to be inserted once certain policy decisions made Docs 23-24 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments highlighting updated information, indications material will be updated once decisions made, arguments pointing out weaknesses in positions and requesting feedback, and alternative proposals Docs 28-29 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future and editorial questions regarding inclusion of additional information Doc 30 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments identifying redundant arguments, explaining word choice, questioning the tone of particular language, and requests for colleague feedback Docs 31, 33 contain redlines and editorial comments requesting additional information from colleagues, discussions regarding word choice, and discussions regarding whether information redundant and should be removed Docs 32, 34 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments requesting additional information from colleagues, discussions regarding word choice, and discussions regarding whether information redundant and should be removed Docs 35, 37 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments regarding word choice, whether information is redundant and should be removed, identifying newly inserted language and justifying placement within section for emphasis and requests that colleagues provide additional information Doc 36 contains editorial comments regarding word choice, whether information is redundant and should be removed, identifying newly inserted language and justifying placement within section for purposes of emphasis and requests that colleagues provide additional information Doc 38 contains editorial comments requesting colleagues provide additional information Doc 39 contains editorial comments regarding word choice V This section discusses formulas for calculating a place-of-birth metric, discusses factors potentially impacting the metric and possible Doc 1, 19-23 Doc 2, 46-48 Doc 3, 71-74 Doc 4, 98-100 Docs 1, 12, 15-17 no additional section specific comments Docs 2-7 contain placeholders for subsections to be completed in future and editorial comments regarding edits for the sake of consistency and comments Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 68 of 86 8 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) methods of adjustments, and weaknesses inherent in the data that would be used to calculate the metric. Doc 5, 124-126 Doc 6, 150-152 Doc 7, 176-178 Doc 8, 202-207 Doc 9, 231-235 Doc 10, 262-266 Doc 11, 292-296 Doc 12, 324-328 Doc 13, 356-360 Doc 14, 389-393 Doc 15, 421-426 Doc 16, 453-457 Doc 17, 485-489 Doc 18, 518-522 Doc 19, 551-556 Doc 20, 584-589 Doc 21, 618-623 Doc 22, 651-656 Doc 23, 684-688 Doc 24, 716-720 Doc 25, 746-750 Doc 26, 776-780 Doc 27, 806-810 Doc 28, 829-835 Doc 29, 847-853 Doc 30, 867-871 Doc 31, 891-894 Doc 32, 916-920 Doc 33, 942-945 Doc 34, 968-973 Doc 35, 996-1000 Doc 36, 1023-1025 Doc 37, 1050-1054 Doc 38, 1079-1081 Doc 39, 1101-1103 Doc 40, 1113-1122 summarizing outstanding issues and whether information should be reiterated for purposes of emphasis Doc 8 contains redlines, placeholders for subsections to be completed in future and editorial comments regarding edits for the sake of consistency Doc 9 contains editorial comments regarding edits for the sake of consistency Doc 10 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding edits for the sake of consistency and discussions regarding placement of language for purposes of emphasis and requests from colleagues for feedback on inclusion of topics within subsections Doc 11 contains redlines, editorial discussions regarding placement of language for purposes of emphasis Doc 13 contains editorial comments regarding placement of issues for purposes of emphasis and identifies formatting errors Docs 14, 18-24 contain redlines, language strikethroughs Docs 25-27, 40 no additional section specific comments Docs 28-29 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future, and editorial comments regarding repetition of topics Doc 30 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments highlighting changes in language, discussing consistency in use of terms, requesting feedback from colleagues so that blank subsections can be completed, discussions for and against reiterating points in draft and the issues at play, and placeholders for information to be inserted in future as well as sources of information to be inserted in the future Doc 31 contains placeholders for information to be inserted in future, redlines, and editorial comments explaining edits, reminding colleagues to modify document throughout if suggested edits adopted, and discussions regarding whether issues should be incorporated into document Docs 32-33 contain redlines, placeholders for information to be inserted in future, language strikethroughs, editorial comments explaining edits, reminding colleagues to modify document throughout if suggested edits adopted, and discussions regarding whether issues should be incorporated into document Doc 34 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments discussing whether issues should be incorporated into document Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 69 of 86 9 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 35 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, editorial comments explaining edits, placeholders for information to be inserted in future, and whether issues should be incorporated into document Doc 36 contains editorial comments explaining edits and whether particular issues should be incorporated into document in addition to placeholders for information to be inserted in future and placeholders for subsections to be inserted and completed in future Doc 37 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, placeholders for information to be inserted in future, and editorial comments explaining edits, and whether particular issues should be incorporated into document Doc 38 contains editorial comments explaining edits and whether particular issues should be incorporated into document Doc 39 contains placeholders for subsections to be inserted and completed in future and editorial comments VI This section explores proposed next steps for obtaining additional data for use in developing other metrics and discusses the circumstances under which other metrics might prove useful. Doc 1, 23-24 Doc 2, 48-51 Doc 3, 74-77 Doc 4, 100-103 Doc 5, 126-130 Doc 6, 152-156 Doc 7, 178-182 Doc 8, 207-210 Doc 9, 235-239 Doc 10, 267 Doc 11, 297 Doc 12, 328-329 Doc 13, 360-361 Doc 14, 393-394 Doc 15, 426 Doc 16, 457-458 Doc 17, 489-490 Doc 18, 522-523 Doc 19, 556 Doc 20, 589-590 Doc 21, 623 Doc 22, 656-657 Doc 18 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments explaining reasons for editing language Docs 1-7, 9, 12, 15-17, 19, 21-23, 25-27, 30, 36, 38 no additional section specific comments Docs 8, 20, 24, 34-35, 37 contain redlines and language strikethroughs Docs 10-11 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments explaining context of language to colleagues Docs 13-14 contain redlines and editorial comments flagging potentially problematic language are areas requiring revision Docs 28-29, 39-40 do not contain a section VI Doc 31 contains redlines, placeholders for information to be inserted in future, and notations that subsections will be reviewed at later date Doc 32 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 33 contains redlines Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 70 of 86 10 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 23, 688-689 Doc 24, 721 Doc 25, 750-751 Doc 26, 781 Doc 27, 811 Docs 28-29, 39, 40 N/A Doc 30, 871-872 Doc 31, 894-897 Doc 32, 920-922 Doc 33, 945-948 Doc 34, 973-976 Doc 35, 1000-1003 Doc 36, 1026-1029 Doc 37, 1054-1059 Doc 38, 1081-1084 VII This section discusses metrics that did not prove useful and reasons for not pursuing them. Doc 1, 25-28 Doc 2, 51-55 Doc 3, N/A Doc 4, 103-107 Doc 5, 130-133 Doc 6, 156-159 Doc 7, 182-185 Doc 8, 210-214 Doc 9, 239-242 Doc 10, 268-271 Doc 11, 298-301 Doc 12, 330-333 Doc 13, 362-365 Doc 14, 395-398 Doc 15, 427-430 Doc 16, 459-462 Doc 17, 491-494 Doc 18, 524-527 Doc 19, 557-560 Doc 20, 591-594 Docs 3, 28-29, 40 do not contain Section VII Docs 10-11, 14, 18, 20 contain redlines and language strikethroughs Docs 1, 12, 15-17, 19, 21-27, 39 no additional section specific comments Doc 30 contains redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding inclusion or exclusion of additional information Docs 31, 33 contain redlines and editorial comments regarding inclusion or exclusion of additional information Docs 32, 34-35, 37 contain redlines, language strikethroughs, and editorial comments regarding inclusion or exclusion of additional information Docs 2, 4-9, 36, 38 contain editorial comments regarding inclusion or exclusion of additional information Doc 13 contains editorial comments identifying errors Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 71 of 86 11 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 21, 624-627 Doc 22, 658-661 Doc 23, 690-693 Doc 24, 722-725 Doc 25, 752-755 Doc 26, 782-785 Doc 27, 812-815 Doc 28-29, 40 N/A Doc 30, 872-875 Doc 31, 897-900 Doc 32, 922-926 Doc 33, 948-952 Doc 34, 976-979 Doc 35, 1003-1007 Doc 36, 1029-1033 Doc 37, 1059-1063 Doc 38, 1084-1088 Doc 39, 1103-1108 VIII Appendix Doc 1, 29 Doc 2, 56 Doc 3, 82 Doc 4, 108 Doc 5, 134 Doc 6, 160 Doc 7, 186 Doc 8, 215 Doc 9, 243 Doc 10, 272 Doc 11, 302 Doc 12, 334 Doc 13, 366 Doc 14, 399 Doc 15, 431 Doc 16, 463 Doc 17, 495 Doc 18, 528 Docs 1-27, 30-38 page serves as a placeholder for information to be inserted within section VIII in the future. Docs 28-29, 39-40 do not contain a section VIII Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 72 of 86 12 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 19, 561 Doc 20, 595 Doc 21, 628 Doc 22, 662 Doc 23, 694 Doc 24, 726 Doc 25, 756 Doc 26, 786 Doc 27, 816 Docs 28-29, 39-40 N/A Doc 30, 876 Doc 31, 901 Doc 32, 927 Doc 33, 953 Doc 34, 980 Doc 35, 1008 Doc 36, 1034 Doc 37, 1064 Doc 38, 1089 IX Appendix Doc 1, 30 Doc 2, 57 Doc 3, 83 Doc 4, 109 Doc 5, 135 Doc 6, 161 Doc 7, 187 Doc 8, 216 Doc 9, 244 Doc 10, 273 Doc 11, 303 Doc 12, 335 Doc 13, 367 Doc 14, 400 Doc 15, 432 Doc 16, 364 Docs 1-27, 30-38 page serves as a placeholder for information to be inserted within section IX in the future. Docs 28-29, 39-40 do not contain a section IX Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 73 of 86 13 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Doc 17, 496 Doc 18, 529 Doc 19, 562 Doc 20, 596 Doc 21, 629 Doc 22, 663 Doc 23, 695 Doc 24, 727 Doc 25, 757 Doc 26, 787 Doc 27, 817 Docs 28-29, 39, 40 N/A Doc 30, 877 Doc 31, 902 Doc 32, 928 Doc 33, 954 Doc 34, 981 Doc 35, 1009 Doc 36, 1035 Doc 37, 1065 Doc 38, 1090 X Appendix Doc 1, 31 Docs 2-10, N/A Doc 11, 304 Doc 12, 336 Doc 13, 368 Doc 14, 401 Doc 15, 433 Doc 16, 465 Doc 17, 497 Doc 18, 530 Doc 19, 563 Doc 20, 597 Doc 21, 630 Docs 22-40, N/A Docs 1, 11-20 page serves as a placeholder for information to be inserted within section X in the future. Docs 1, 11-21 also contains language preceded by bracketed question marks, e.g. “[?]” Docs 2-10, 22-40 do not contain a section X Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 74 of 86 14 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) XI Appendix Docs 1, 32 Docs 2-10, N/A Doc 11, 305 Doc 12, 337 Doc 13, 369 Doc 14, 402 Doc 15, 434 Doc 16, 466 Doc 17, 498 Doc 18, 531 Doc 19, 564 Doc 20, 598 Doc 21, 631 Docs 22-40, N/A Docs 1, 11-21 page serves as a placeholder for information to be inserted within section XI in the future. Docs 1, 11-21 also contain language preceded by bracketed question marks, e.g. “[?]” Docs 2-10, 22-40 do not contain a section XI Headers/ Footers/ Watermarks Entries in this row under the column heading “Section Specific Comments” reflect the language found in the header and footer on each page of each draft report, as well as watermarks placed on the records, unless otherwise noted. N/A Docs 1-40 “DRAFT” watermark on pages 1-1127 Docs 1, 11-18 no header or footer Docs 2-10, 28-38 Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE” (only first page) Docs 19, 21 Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT as of 7.2/2013” (pages 532-556, 599-623, only) Doc 20 No header Footer: “DRAFT as of 6/117.2/2013” (pages 565-590 only) Doc 22-23 Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT as of 7.2/30/2013” (pages 632-657, 664-689 only) Doc 24 Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT as of 8/1/2013” (pages 696-721 only) Doc 25 Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 75 of 86 15 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT as of 8/21/2013” (pages 728-751only) Docs 26-27 Header: “DRAFT // DELIBERATIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE” (all pages) Footer: “DRAFT as of 8/22/2013” (pages 758-781, 788-811 only) Docs 39-40 Header: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY//DELIBERATIVE” (all pages) Footer: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY//DELIBERATIVE” (pages 1091 and 1109 only) Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 76 of 86 C Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 77 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation for withholding in full seven iterations of a draft report and an outline of the draft report related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). Within this index, each iteration of the draft report and the outline are referred to by an assigned document number - 47 through 54. Bates numbers were applied from page 1 through page 123. Thus, the first page of document 47 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 54 is numbered “123.” This index lists the sections of the draft report, summarizes the contents of the section, identifies the document and bates numbers of the respective section, and sets forth additional section specific comments, if any. The ninth row of the index contains the language found in the headers and footers, as well as the watermarks, placed on the draft report. The final row describes document 54 which is an outline of the draft report. REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS Title Page Not Applicable Doc 47, 1 Doc 48, 15 Doc 49, 30 Doc 50, 49 Doc 51, 68 Doc 52, 85 Doc 53, 98 Docs 47-48, 51-52 contain a placeholder for title page to be inserted in future Docs 49-50 title page dated July 11, 2012 Doc 53 title page dated July 9, 2012 Table of Contents This section contains the titles of the proposed chapters (or sections) within the draft report. Doc 47, 2 Doc 48, 16 Doc 49, 31 Doc 50, 50 Doc 51, 69 Doc 52, 86 Doc 53, 99 Docs 47-52 not all chapters in the respective draft reports are listed in the table of contents and the number of entries within the table of contents vary between drafts. Finally, entries in table of contents incomplete. Doc 53 no additional comments Introduction This section summarizes the purpose of the draft report. Doc 47, 2 Doc 48, 16 Doc 49, 32 Doc 50, 51 Doc 51, 70 Doc 52, 86 Doc 53, 100 Docs 47-53 no additional comments Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 78 of 86 2 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS General Points This section identifies and summarizes sources of data utilized in the statistical monitoring efforts. Doc 47, 2-4 Doc 48, 16-18 Doc 49, 32-34 Doc 50, 51-53 Doc 51, 70-71 Doc 52, 86-88 Doc 53, 100-102 Docs 47-53 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 48 also contains redlines and language strikethroughs I This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a foreign-born arrestee comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, 4-8 Doc 48, 18-23 Doc 49, 34-38 Doc 50, 53-57 Doc 51, 72-76 Doc 52, 88-92 Doc 53, 102-106 Docs 47-53 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 48 also contains redlines and language strikethroughs II This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a foreign-born crime comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, 8-13 Doc 48, 23-28 Doc 49, 38-44 Doc 50, 57-63 Doc 51, 76-81 Doc 52, 92-97 Doc 53, 106-112 Docs 47, 51-52 contain placeholders for information and subsections to be inserted in future, editorial comments requesting colleagues to author subsections Doc 48 contains editorial comments indicating decision will need to be made before portion of section can be completed, redlines, language strikethroughs, and placeholders for information and subsections to be inserted in future Docs 49-50 contain placeholders for subsections to be inserted in future Doc 53 no additional comments III This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a crime severity comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns Doc 47, 13-14 Doc 48, 28-29 Doc 49, 44-45 Doc 50, 63-64 Docs 47-48, 51 contain placeholders for subsections to be written and inserted in the future Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 79 of 86 3 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 51, 81-82 Doc 52, N/A Doc 53, 112-113 Doc 52 does not contain a section dedicated to a crime severity comparison statistic Docs 49-50, 53 no additional comments IV This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a place of birth comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, N/A Doc 48, N/A Doc 49, 45-48 Doc 50, 64-67 Doc 51, 82-84 Doc 52, N/A Doc 53, 113-116 Docs 47-48, 52 do not contain a section dedicated to a place of birth comparison statistic Docs 49-51, 53 no additional comments Headers/ Footers/ Watermarks The entries in this row under the column heading “Section Specific Comments” reflect the language found in the header and footer on each page of each draft report, as well as watermarks placed on the records, unless otherwise noted. N/A Docs 47-48, 51-52 No headers, footers or watermarks. Docs 49-50, 53 Header: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (all pages) Footer: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (only first page) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Outline Doc 54 is an outline of the draft report described above in this Vaughn index. Doc 54, 117-123 Doc 54 Header: “DRAFT // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” (all pages) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 80 of 86 D Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 81 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation for withholding in full seven iterations of a draft report and an outline of the draft report related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). Within this index, each iteration of the draft report and the outline are referred to by an assigned document number - 47 through 54. Bates numbers were applied from page 1 through page 123. Thus, the first page of document 47 is numbered “1” while the last page of document 54 is numbered “123.” This index lists the sections of the draft report, summarizes the contents of the section, identifies the document and bates numbers of the respective section, and sets forth additional section specific comments, if any. The ninth row of the index contains the language found in the headers and footers, as well as the watermarks, placed on the draft report. The final row describes document 54 which is an outline of the draft report. REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS Title Page Not Applicable Doc 47, 1 Doc 48, 15 Doc 49, 30 Doc 50, 49 Doc 51, 68 Doc 52, 85 Doc 53, 98 Docs 47-48, 51-52 contain a placeholder for title page to be inserted in future Docs 49-50 title page dated July 11, 2012 Doc 53 title page dated July 9, 2012 Table of Contents This section contains the titles of the proposed chapters (or sections) within the draft report. Doc 47, 2 Doc 48, 16 Doc 49, 31 Doc 50, 50 Doc 51, 69 Doc 52, 86 Doc 53, 99 Docs 47-52 not all chapters in the respective draft reports are listed in the table of contents and the number of entries within the table of contents vary between drafts. Finally, entries in table of contents incomplete. Doc 53 no additional comments Introduction This section summarizes the purpose of the draft report. Doc 47, 2 Doc 48, 16 Doc 49, 32 Doc 50, 51 Doc 51, 70 Doc 52, 86 Doc 53, 100 Docs 47-53 no additional comments Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 82 of 86 2 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS General Points This section identifies and summarizes sources of data utilized in the statistical monitoring efforts. Doc 47, 2-4 Doc 48, 16-18 Doc 49, 32-34 Doc 50, 51-53 Doc 51, 70-71 Doc 52, 86-88 Doc 53, 100-102 Docs 47-53 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 48 also contains redlines and language strikethroughs I This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a foreign-born arrestee comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, 4-8 Doc 48, 18-23 Doc 49, 34-38 Doc 50, 53-57 Doc 51, 72-76 Doc 52, 88-92 Doc 53, 102-106 Docs 47-53 contain placeholders for information to be inserted in future Doc 48 also contains redlines and language strikethroughs II This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a foreign-born crime comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, 8-13 Doc 48, 23-28 Doc 49, 38-44 Doc 50, 57-63 Doc 51, 76-81 Doc 52, 92-97 Doc 53, 106-112 Docs 47, 51-52 contain placeholders for information and subsections to be inserted in future, editorial comments requesting colleagues to author subsections Doc 48 contains editorial comments indicating decision will need to be made before portion of section can be completed, redlines, language strikethroughs, and placeholders for information and subsections to be inserted in future Docs 49-50 contain placeholders for subsections to be inserted in future Doc 53 no additional comments III This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a crime severity comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns Doc 47, 13-14 Doc 48, 28-29 Doc 49, 44-45 Doc 50, 63-64 Docs 47-48, 51 contain placeholders for subsections to be written and inserted in the future Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 83 of 86 3 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/ANATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) REPORT SECTION SUMMARY OF REPORT SECTION CONTENT DOCUMENT AND BATES NUMBER(S) SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 51, 81-82 Doc 52, N/A Doc 53, 112-113 Doc 52 does not contain a section dedicated to a crime severity comparison statistic Docs 49-50, 53 no additional comments IV This section discusses variant approaches to calculating a place of birth comparison statistic, identifies and discusses weaknesses and concerns between the approaches, and explores possible solutions to overcome weaknesses and concerns. Doc 47, N/A Doc 48, N/A Doc 49, 45-48 Doc 50, 64-67 Doc 51, 82-84 Doc 52, N/A Doc 53, 113-116 Docs 47-48, 52 do not contain a section dedicated to a place of birth comparison statistic Docs 49-51, 53 no additional comments Headers/ Footers/ Watermarks The entries in this row under the column heading “Section Specific Comments” reflect the language found in the header and footer on each page of each draft report, as well as watermarks placed on the records, unless otherwise noted. N/A Docs 47-48, 51-52 No headers, footers or watermarks. Docs 49-50, 53 Header: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (all pages) Footer: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY // DELIBERATIVE” (only first page) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Outline Doc 54 is an outline of the draft report described above in this Vaughn index. Doc 54, 117-123 Doc 54 Header: “DRAFT // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” (all pages) Watermark: “DRAFT” (all pages) Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 84 of 86 E Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 85 of 86 1 HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS D/B/A NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC (D.D.C.) This Vaughn index serves to provide a detailed explanation for withholding in full two draft reports related to Secure Communities statistical monitoring under the deliberative process privilege pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(5). The draft reports have been assigned document number 55 (totaling six pages) and document number 56 (totaling 2 pages). The below index identifies the document number, provides an overview of the content of the document, and provides document specific comments. DOCUMENT NUMBER SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS 55 Undated six-page draft report of results of statistical monitoring and analysis efforts Record contains placeholders for language to be inserted in future; editorial comments that assertions in draft report are incorrect and why; placeholders for six sections to be inserted in future; header is marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/PRE-DECISIONAL/DELIBERATIVE;” footer is marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/PRE-DECISIONAL/DELIBERATIVE” 56 Two-page introduction to a draft report discussing reasons for initiating statistical monitoring efforts Record header is marked “DELIBERATIVE – DRAFT 5/13/11.” Both pages contain the watermark “DRAFT” Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-2 Filed 04/28/17 Page 86 of 86 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS d/b/a NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al. Defendants. No. 1:16-cv-00211-RMC [Proposed] ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of the Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, any opposition and the entire record, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. ________________ ____________________________ United States District Judge Case 1:16-cv-00211-RMC Document 31-3 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 1