UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) NBC 7 SAN DIEGO, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-1146 (RBW) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs, NBC 7 San Diego (“NBC 7”), Tom Jones, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (the “RCFP”), bring this civil action against the defendants, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Currently pending before the Court are (1) the DHS’s motion for summary judgment and the CBP’s and the USCIS’s motion for partial summary judgment, see Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Defs.’ Mot.” or the “defendants’ motion”), ECF No. 22;1 and (2) the plaintiffs’ 1 On April 20, 2020, defendants CBP and USCIS filed their motion for partial summary judgment. See Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1, ECF No. 22. On that same date, defendant DHS filed its motion for summary judgment. See Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1, ECF No. 23. Although two (continued . . .) cross-motion for partial summary judgment, see Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Pls.’ Mot.” or the “plaintiffs’ motion”), ECF No. 24. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions,2 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must (1) deny in part and deny without prejudice in part the defendants’ motion, and (2) grant in part and deny without prejudice in part the plaintiffs’ motion. I. BACKGROUND This case concerns several FOIA requests submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendants in 2019 seeking records regarding “a ‘secret database of activists, journalists, and social media influencers’ related to a migrant caravan [allegedly] approaching the United States’ border with Mexico.” Pls.’ Facts ¶ 29; see Jones Decl. ¶ 3; id., Exhibit (“Ex.”) 2 (Jones et al., Source: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Government Tracking Journalists and Immigration Advocates Through a Secret Database, NBC 7 (Mar. 6, 2019 3:57 p.m.) (“Jones Article”)) at 6–16, ECF No. (. . . continued) separate motions were submitted to the Court, it appears that the motions are identical. Accordingly, the Court will treat the filings as one motion and will consider ECF No. 22 as the operative motion. 2 In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals