Moreover, the court in San Diego has already released almost all these documents from Team Tangerine 2.0, to the plaintiffs in SoCal. It cannot be a burden to save these same documents and videos to a drive, and deliver the same into the Dirksen Building in Chicago, per Judge Ellis' much earlier discovery order. But still -- Stephen Miller, et al., drag their collective leaden feet. Here's the latest, leading up to the October 8, 2026 hearing. I will be in the high Rockies then, but you know how to dial in -- or walk in, to the court:
. . .Pursuant to this Court’s authorization, Plaintiffs sought documents already produced [By Team Tangerine 2.0 lawyers] in the Vasquez Perdomo [USDC, SD CA] litigation regarding Defendants’ unlawful immigration actions that are relevant to both matters. Now, Defendants seek to quash that subpoena.
The Court should deny Defendants’ motion. The subpoena seeks documents relevant to establishing Defendants’ unlawful policies and conduct; for example, it seeks training materials used across operations. It is striking that Defendants assert irrelevance when they are the ones to raise the factual dispute that the alleged illegal activities merely reflected “disparate incidents involving DHS agents.” Moreover, Defendants lack standing to raise many of their objections, and the protective order currently in effect provides adequate assurances of confidentiality. . . .
Defendants’ primary contention is that the subpoena would be unduly burdensome, because it would require them to review the thousands of responsive documents produced in the Vasquez Perdomo litigation for privilege. This contention is wrong. Plaintiffs have offered to comply with the same clawback agreement in place in the Vasquez Perdomo litigation. Defendants rejected that proposal, but this Court should impose the same procedure here. Alternatively, this Court can review the same materials the Vasquez Perdomo Court did and reach its own decision on privilege, which will provide guidance for the remaining documents like what happened in Vasquez Perdomo.
Defendants cannot have it both ways: obtain the benefits of a blanket privilege assertion without having to litigate its propriety. It is not unduly burdensome for Defendants to simply brief a privilege assertion of their own making. . . .
In the fall of 2025, the same named defendants in Vasquez Perdomo, among others, implemented a strikingly similar unlawful campaign in the Chicago metropolitan area. From September 2025 through December 2025, Defendants “rampaged. . . through Chicago and surrounding areas, lawlessly stopping, interrogating and arresting residents, and attacking them with chemical weapons.” State of Illinois, et al. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, et al., 26-cv-321 (N.D. Il) (“Illinois v. DHS”), ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. As in Los Angeles, governmental entities sued, alleging, inter alia, that the program of roving patrols, warrantless arrests, and arresting and detaining persons at courthouses and other sensitive locations violated the Tenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. . . .
Now you know -- and I have been grinning like Clark Griswold, stuck in his attic, in warm old furs and hats, watching very old home movies at Christmas. . . as I filter through our 2005 era, month-long trip through Europe -- with my then pretty small kids -- I am doing a series of "back then, to now" comparison photos [likely to become a Shutterfly-style calendar (at Xmas in AZ) for all my grown and gone offspring] -- scenes from Paris, Rome (one of which is embedded in today's masthead -- and below), Florence, Venice and London and Belfast. Very sentimental today, in the rain here. Smile. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment