Saget v. Trump, Plaintiffs' Motion For A Complete Record

Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 31 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 521
July 23, 2018
BY ECF Mayer Brown LLP

71 South Wacker Drive
Honorable Steven Tiscione Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
United States Magistrate Judge
Main Tel +1 312 782 0600
United States District Court Main Fax +1 312 701 7711
Eastern District of New York www.mayerbrown.com
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201 Geoffrey M. Pipoly
Direct Tel +1 312 701 7902
Direct Fax +1 312 706 8108
Re: Saget, et al. v. Trump, et al., 18-CV-1599 gpipoly@mayerbrown.com
Dear Judge Tiscione:
Pursuant to this Court’s July 16, 2018 Order and Rule III.A of this Court’s Individual Practice
Rules, Plaintiffs submit this Letter motion to Supplement the Administrative Record and for
Extra-Record Discovery.
Defendants have not yet produced the full administrative record in this case. To begin, Plaintiffs
request that this Court order Defendants to supplement the record with the full compendium of
documents that all relevant agencies directly or indirectly considered in deciding to revoke
Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) for Haiti. Plaintiffs further request that this Court grant
Plaintiffs extra-record discovery, including depositions, to allow Plaintiffs to pursue their
allegations that Defendants’ decision to revoke TPS for Haiti was motivated by discriminatory
animus, violated the requirements of the TPS statute, and was arbitrary and capricious. Such
discovery is necessary to demonstrate that the considerations contained in the administrative
record were pretext for arbitrary, discriminatory decisionmaking.1
This case involves two distinct types of claims: First, Plaintiffs have brought Administrative
Procedures Act (“APA”) and ultra vires claims alleging that (1) Defendants violated the TPS
statute and the APA by arbitrarily and capriciously failing to undertake the required statutory
review prior to terminating TPS for Haiti, and (2) Defendants adopted and applied new criteria to
revoke TPS without providing good reasons for those criteria or employing required notice-and-
comment procedures. Second, Plaintiffs have brought separate constitutional claims alleging that
Defendants’ revocation of TPS was motivated by discriminatory animus towards Haitians in
violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ discovery should be limited to the paltry 199 pages Defendants
have produced, which Defendants describe as the whole administrative record. The notion that
199 pages constitutes the entire administrative record considered by Defendants when deciding
to terminate TPS for 60,000 people is facially implausible. Similarly baseless is Defendants’
attempt to cast Plaintiffs’ Complaint as a run-of-the-mill challenge to an agency decision, when
1
Should any part of this motion be denied, Plaintiffs reserve their right to revisit any arguments herein after the
District Court has ruled on Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion. To the extent the District Court rules that
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged claims which cannot be established based on the 199 pages Defendants have
produced, Plaintiffs are entitled to additional discovery as necessary to further investigate and prove those claims.
Mayer Brown LLP operates in combination with other Mayer Brown entities, which have offices in North America,
Europe and Asia and are associated with Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership.
Case
Mayer 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST
Brown LLP Document 31 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 522
July 23, 2018

Page 2
in fact Plaintiffs’ claims are far from ordinary. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Defendants’
stated rationale for revoking TPS for Haiti is pure pretext to cover up an arbitrary decision
motivated by illegal discrimination. Thus, much of the evidence to which Plaintiffs are entitled
necessarily falls outside the administrative record—however it is defined—precisely because the
administrative record itself is pretext which does not reflect the true decision-making process.
Plaintiffs thus require discovery beyond what the agency has self-servingly designated as the
administrative record, and accordingly request that this Court order Defendants to (1)
supplement the record and produce all evidence they considered directly or indirectly in deciding
to terminate TPS for Haiti; and (2) grant Plaintiffs extra-record discovery, including depositions,
relating to whether the termination of TPS violated the TPS statute and/or was motivated by
discriminatory animus. (See Ex. A, Order in Ramos v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-1554 at *5 (N.D. Cal.
June 25, 2018) (in another TPS challenge, ordering discovery of the whole record, including
materials “indirectly considered,” and ordering the government to answer interrogatories)).
Supplementation of the record is warranted because Defendants have excluded documents they
considered in deciding to terminate TPS for Haiti and have done so in an improper attempt to
hide the true reason behind the decision. “The administrative record consists of all documents
and materials that the agency directly or indirectly considered.” Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, 290 F.
Supp. 3d 73, 77 (D.D.C. 2018). “To ensure that an agency ‘not skew the record in its favor by
excluding pertinent but unfavorable information,’ the law affords an agency merely a rebuttable
presumption that it properly designated an accurate and complete administrative record.” Cty. of
San Miguel v. Kempthorne, 587 F. Supp. 2d 64, 72 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting The Fund for
Animals v. Williams, 391 F.Supp.2d 191, 197 (D.D.C.2005)). Courts may order an agency to
supplement the record “if the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may
have been adverse to its decision.” Id. at 77–78. “[N]on-record review is also permissible in
situations where there is a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior on the part of the
part of the agency.” Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 143 F. Supp. 2d 7, 11
(D.D.C. 2001). Supplementation of the record is “required upon a prima facie showing that the
agency excluded from the record evidence adverse to its position or that the agency’s stated
rationale is but a pretext masking its true basis of decision.” Banner Health v. Sebelius, 2013 WL
11241368, at *6 (D.D.C. July 30, 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
Each of these factors is present here. Plaintiffs have strong evidence that Defendants have not
produced all documents regarding their decision to terminate TPS for Haiti because Plaintiffs
have already separately obtained relevant documents not included in the 199 pages Defendants
produced. For example, Plaintiffs have obtained FOIA documents which show that on Friday,
April 7, 2017, Kathy Nuebel Kovarik instructed agency staff to obtain the criminal records and
public benefit usage rates of Haitian TPS recipients, even though neither is a factor the
government may consider under the TPS statute. See 8 U.S.C. 1254a. (See Ex. B) (the “Kovarik
email”). Similarly, an October 31, 2017 email about the TPS recommendation of then-Secretary
of State Tillerson (the “Tillerson email”) reveals that a country conditions memo was edited to
“delete the portions [of the memo] the Secretary disapproved.” (Ex. C at 26.) Neither of these
documents (nor the original, unedited county conditions memo) is among the 199 pages
Case
July 23, 2018

Page 3
Defendants produced, and their exclusion is itself evidence that Defendants are currently
withholding documents likely to shed light on the pretextual nature of their stated rationale by
not designating them as part of the administrative record. These documents’ exclusion from
production likewise reveals bad faith on the part of Defendants to hide the decision’s true nature.
The Kovarik and Tillerson emails are not the only pertinent documents Defendants have
withheld. Plaintiffs already possess literally hundreds of similar FOIA documents related to
Haitian TPS—some of which are exhibits to the First Amended Complaint—which Defendants
have withheld. (See Exs. B-D, none of which is included the 199 pages.) However, many of
these documents are heavily (and erroneously) redacted, and it is unclear how many other
additional documents exist—all the more reason why this action requires fulsome discovery.
Moreover, extra-record discovery is proper where the plaintiff shows bad faith or improper
behavior on the part of the agency. See Comm. of 100 on the Fed. City v. Foxx, 140 F. Supp. 3d
54, 59 (D.D.C. 2015). “[E]vidence of unalterably closed minds” is evidence of improper
behavior. Id. There is ample evidence here that Defendants had already made up their mind
before analyzing any relevant data or documents. The Kovarik email is evidence of an agency
searching for ammunition to use against a group it had already decided to expel from the
country. Similarly, the Tillerson email shows the deletion of relevant information of which “the
Secretary disapproved.” Both of these documents show Defendants improperly predetermined
their decision to revoke TPS for Haiti, and entitle Plaintiffs to extra-record discovery.
Even if this Court were limited to review of the as-yet-provided administrative record for
Plaintiffs’ APA claims, Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims deserve the same fulsome discovery as
they would receive absent Plaintiffs’ separate, independent APA claims. “A direct constitutional
challenge is reviewed independent of the APA” and courts routinely order discovery in cases
involving both APA and constitutional claims. Grill v. Quinn, 2012 WL 174873, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Jan. 20, 2012) (listing cases). Although courts have sometimes denied plaintiffs discovery for
constitutional claims which are “fundamentally similar to their APA claims,” (Chiayu Chang v.
USCIS, 254 F. Supp. 3d 160, 162 (D.D.C. 2017)), Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims in this case are
not fundamentally similar to their APA claim. Plaintiffs’ APA claims allege that DHS’s
decisionmaking violated the TPS statute and implemented a novel, arbitrarily narrow standard
for TPS review. In contrast, Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims allege that Defendants’ termination
of Haiti’s TPS was motivated by discriminatory animus against Haitians.2 To deny Plaintiffs
extra-record discovery on their constitutional claims in this case would be tantamount to holding
that where plaintiffs independently allege both APA claims and constitutional claims against the
Government, they are restricted to such discovery as otherwise would have been appropriate if
they had only brought the APA claims. That is not the law. Plaintiffs cannot prosecute their
constitutional claims without full discovery, including depositions.
2
Even if some of the documents that Defendants have provided (or will provide, upon supplementation) may
overlap with the documents Plaintiffs seek in formal discovery, “that is no reason to deny Plaintiff relevant
documents on his constitutional claims.” Jordan v. Wiley, 2009 WL 980313, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 8, 2009) (granting
discovery as a matter of course on constitutional claims even though it could be duplicative of APA claims).
Case
July 23, 2018

Page 4
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Ira J. Kurzban By: /s/ Sejal Zota

Ira J. Kurzban Sejal Zota
KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
TETZELI & PRATT, P.A. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
2650 S.W. 27th Ave., 2nd Floor 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602
Miami, FL 33133 Boston, MA 02018
Phone: (786) 410-4706 Phone: (919) 698-5015
ira@kkwtlaw.com sejal@nipnlg.org
By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly

Geoffrey M. Pipoly
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 782-0600
gpipoly@mayerbrown.com
cc: BY E.C.F.
Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 31-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 525
Exhibit A
Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST
Case 3:18-cv-01554-EMC
Document
Document
31-1 Filed
34 Filed
07/23/18
06/25/18
PagePage
2 of 61 PageID
of 5 #: 526
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7 CRISTA RAMOS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01554-EMC

8 Plaintiffs,
ABBREVIATED ORDER DENYING
9 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
10 KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al., Docket No. 20
11 Defendants.
12
Northern District of California
United States District Court
13 After careful consideration of the parties‟ submissions and arguments at the hearing, the
14 Court issues this abbreviated disposition DENYING Defendants‟ motion to dismiss. A reasoned
15 opinion setting forth the Court‟s analysis will be issued separately in the near future.
16 A. Jurisdictional Bar
17 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. The Temporary Protected
18 Status (“TPS”) statute provides that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the
19 Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a
20 foreign state under this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) (emphasis added). That
21 jurisdictional bar does not apply to Plaintiffs‟ claims. There is a strong presumption that agency
22 actions and constitutional claims are reviewable in federal court absent clear and convincing
23 evidence of Congressional intent to the contrary. See, e.g., Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603
24 (1988); KOLA, Inc. v. U.S., 882 F.2d 361, 363 (9th Cir. 1989). Properly construed, the word
25 “determination” in Section 1254a refers to an individual designation, termination, or extension of
26 a designation with respect to a particular country, not to Defendants‟ adoption of general policies
27 or practices employed in making such determinations. See, e.g., McNary v. Haitain Refugee Ctr.,
28 Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 492 (1991) (“[T]he reference to „a determination‟ describes a single act rather
Document
Document
31-1 Filed
34 Filed
07/23/18
06/25/18
PagePage
3 of 62 PageID
of 5 #: 527
1 than a group of decisions or a practice or procedure employed in making decisions.”); Reno v.
2 Catholic Social Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 55 (1993) (statute barring judicial review of “a
3 determination” does not “preclude[] [an] action challenging the legality of a regulation”); see also
4 Proyecto San Pablo v. I.N.S., 189 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs challenge
5 Defendants‟ adoption of a new rule employed in the evaluation of whether to extend or terminate a
6 TPS designation. They do not challenge the substantive factual determinations to terminate TPS
7 status of the four countries. Plaintiffs‟ challenge is not to a “determination” within the scope of
8 Section 1254a. Defendants‟ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
9 12(b)(1) is DENIED.1
10 B. Claims on the Merits
11 Administrative Procedure Act Claim (Fourth Count): Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
12 departed from prior agency practice by changing whether (or the extent to which) subsequent
13 events are considered when evaluating whether to terminate or extend TPS status. The
14 Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency to provide a “reasoned explanation” for
15 departures from prior agency practice or policies. See, e.g., Federal Commc’ns Comm’n v. Fox
16 Televisions Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009); Cal. Public Utilities Comm’n v. Fed.
17 Energy Reg. Comm’n, 879 F.3d 966, 977 (9th Cir. 2018) (a longstanding policy may be “evinced
18 in a series of . . . decisions and statements”). Defendants have not provided such an explanation as
19 they deny any change has occurred. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that a change has occurred and thus
20 state a claim of non-compliance with the APA. The Court DENIES Defendants‟ motion to
21 dismiss.
22 Equal Protection Claim (Second Count): Plaintiffs allege that both: (1) the decision to
23 terminate TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Sudan, and (2) Defendants‟ alleged change
24 in rule, were motivated by racial animus. Government action motivated by racial animus is
25 subject to strict scrutiny and courts may look beyond a facially-neutral policy to consider, e.g.,
26
27 1
Defendants‟ challenge to jurisdiction is legal, not fact-based: Defendants contend that even if
28 there was a change in the Department‟s interpretation and application of TPS criteria, jurisdiction
would be barred as a matter of law under § 1254a(b)(5)(A).
2
Document
Document
31-1 Filed
34 Filed
07/23/18
06/25/18
PagePage
4 of 63 PageID
of 5 #: 528
1 “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up [to] the challenged decision,” “[d]epartures from the
2 normal procedural sequence,” “and “statements by members of the decisionmaking body.” See
3 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1977). Although the
4 Secretary of Homeland Security is the decisionmaker designated by statute, Plaintiffs have
5 plausibly pled that President Trump made statements which a reasonable observer could construe
6 as evidence of racial bias animus against non-white immigrants, and that he thereafter influenced
7 and tainted DHS‟s decision-making process with regard to TPS. Cf. Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d
8 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (in employment discrimination case, subordinate‟s animus may be imputed to
9 the decisionmaker when the subordinate influenced or was involved in the decisionmaking
10 process). The prohibition on racial animus under the Due Process clause‟s Equal Protection
11 guarantee applies to executive action in the immigration context. See Kwai Fun Wong v. U.S., 373
12 F.3d 952, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We cannot countenance that the Constitution would permit
13 immigration officials to engage in such behavior as rounding up all immigration parolees of a
14 particular race solely because of a consideration such as skin color. Although Congress has
15 plenary power to create immigration law, and the judicial branch must defer to executive and
16 legislative branch decisionmaking in that area, that power is subject to important limitations.”).
17 As to the claim that the scope of judicial review is very narrow where the challenge is to selective
18 prosecution under Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (“AADC”),
19 AADC only applies to challenges to decisions whether to criminally prosecute or deport an alien.
20 Defendants‟ termination of TPS “do[es] not implicate the Attorney General‟s . . . discretion to
21 choose to deport one person rather than another among those who are illegally in the country.”
22 See Kwai Fun Wong, 373 U.S. at 970.
23 The Court recognizes that the law in this area is developing and decisions from the
24 Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals could alter the equal protection analysis. The Court may
25 order supplemental briefing or entertain a motion for reconsideration if appropriate. Defendants‟
26 motion to dismiss is provisionally DENIED.
27 Due Process Claims of U.S. Citizen Children and TPS-Holders (First and Third
28 Counts): Plaintiffs have a liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment not to be removed
3
Document
Document
31-1 Filed
34 Filed
07/23/18
06/25/18
PagePage
5 of 64 PageID
of 5 #: 529
1 from the United States, not to be separated from their families, and not to be forced to make a
2 choice between the two. See Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 155 (1945) (observing that
3 deportation “visits a great hardship on the individual and deprives him of the right to stay and live
4 in this land of freedom”); Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The right to
5 live with and not be separated from one‟s immediate family is a right that ranks high among the
6 interests of the individual and that cannot be taken away without procedural due process.”
7 (quotation omitted)); Bustamante v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing
8 protected liberty interest in “[f]reedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is,
9 of course, one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause”). However, Plaintiffs have not
10 cited any case in which the government‟s countervailing interest in enforcing immigration laws in
11 a lawful and otherwise constitutional manner has been overcome by individual liberty interests in
12 a substantive due process challenge. See, e.g., Gebhardt v. Nielsen, 879 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir.
13 2018). Although it is questionable whether Plaintiffs can establish such a broad Due Process
14 claim, to the extent Plaintiffs state a claim that the Department‟s actions in this case violate Equal
15 Protection and/or the APA, they have commensurately stated Due Process claims; the government
16 has no justifiable interest in unlawful law enforcement. Cf. Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d
17 1411, 1419-20 (9th Cir. 1987) (state had “no legitimate interest in interfering with [protected]
18 liberty interest [in familial relations] through the use of excessive force by police officers”),
19 overruled on other grounds, Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1040 n.1 (9th Cir.
20 1999); Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that “a bare . . . desire to harm
21 a politically unpopular group [is] not [a] legitimate state interest” (citation and quotation omitted)).
22 For these reasons, Defendants‟ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
23 C. Production of Administrative Records and Discovery
24 As stated on the record, Defendants shall produce the administrative records for the TPS
25 termination of Sudan and Nicaragua within 10 days, and for El Salvador and Haiti one week later.
26 The administrative record is not limited to “formal recommendations.” Rather, the
27 “„whole‟ administrative record . . . consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly
28 considered by agency decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency‟s position.”
4
Document
Document
31-1 Filed
34 Filed
07/23/18
06/25/18
PagePage
6 of 65 PageID
of 5 #: 530
1 Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and quotation
2 omitted, emphasis in original). It must “include[] everything that was before the agency pertaining
3 to the merits of its decision.” Portland Audobon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d
4 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993). It must also include materials “indirectly considered,” i.e., those
5 materials relied on by subordinates who directly advised the ultimate decision-maker. See In re
6 United States, 875 F.3d 1200, 1207-8 (9th Cir. 2017), reversed on other grounds, 138 S.Ct. 443
7 (2017).
8 Deliberative material that was relied upon directly or indirectly is presumptively part of the
9 administrative record. If Defendants invoke the deliberative process privilege, they must produce
10 a detailed privilege log identifying the excluded material and the basis for privilege with the
11 administrative record. The parties should note that this privilege is qualified, not absolute, and
12 that any assertion thereof will be subject to review accordingly. See Desert Survivors v. U.S.
13 Dept. of the Interior, 231 F.Supp.3d 368, 380-86 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
14 Finally, as discussed on the record, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs‟ Interrogatory
15 No. 1 and Requests for Production Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7 within 14 days of the hearing date. The
16 parties shall meet-and-confer with respect to Plaintiffs‟ remaining discovery requests, including
17 the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
18 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 20 and 28.
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22 Dated: June 25, 2018
23
24 ______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
25 United States District Judge
26
27
28
5
Exhibit B
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!2!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!2;8
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!4!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!2;;
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!5!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!311
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!316
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!24!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!31;
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!2;!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!326
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;1!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!397
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;4!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!39;
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;5!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!3;1
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.5!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;;!qh!212!RcigKF!$<!3;6
Exhibit C
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ecug!2<29.ex.126;;.YHM.UV!!!Fqewogpv!32.22!!!Hkngf!16042029!!!Rcig!;!qh!39!RcigKF!$<!462
;
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2;
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Exhibit D
4
5
6
7
8
Exhibit E
$*+', &/1'
#0/-" ;CH@J ?MQ@

$*.1" 5MLB@T# 5@T &)# '%&+ (,** 85
%/" "PUMQ@-LGNLJE$MOE"
$2(+*)1" 2>, ;29/ 5157, <ORKN .BKGLGPQO@QGMLVP 0CAGPGML QM 1LB <8; 0CPGEL@QGMLP DMO 1J
;@JS@BMO# 3MLBRO@P# @LB 3@GQG 4ELMOCB 9GPIP QM =$;$ 6@QGML@J ;CAROGQT @LB ;@DCQT MD
5MOC <F@L )%%#%%% 8CMNJC
"+*(. ,127>=F (C1= J%>@486= -4;1B8>=AK

#&),. %@831EF )1E NNF OMNR NOGMQ ,)
#-$'&%,. )$)+G /@C<? "3<8=8AB@1B8>=IA #428A8>= B> $=3 /,. #4A86=1B8>=A 5>@ $; .1;D13>@F &>=3C@1AF 1=3 &18B8 '6=>@43
-8A9A B> 0H.H *1B8>=1; .42C@8BE 1=3 .154BE >5 )>@4 /71= PMMFMMM ,4>?;4
<7+ ?Y_P]P^_PO DL]_TP^

1975+ FPYL_P <Z]PTRY EPWL_TZY^ 8ZXXT__PP 9PXZN]L_TN F_LQQ
/,<0+ ALd ++& ,*+2
90+ G]`X[ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ 9PNT^TZY _Z ;YO GDF 9P^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >ZYO`]L^& LYO >LT_T
?RYZ]PO ET^V^ _Z H(F( BL_TZYLW FPN`]T_d LYO FLQP_d ZQ AZ]P GSLY .**&*** DPZ[WP
i? LX NZYNP]YPO _SL_ _SPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZY ]PNZXXPYOPO _SL_ _SP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ >ZXPWLYO FPN`]T_d $9>F%
_P]XTYL_P _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ TY OPWTMP]L_P OT^]PRL]O ZQ _SP NZ`Y^PW LYO
Pc[P]_T^P ZQ F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQQTNTLW^ TY IL^STYR_ZY LYO L_ _SP H(F( ;XML^^TP^ TY LWW _S]PP NZ`Y_]TP^(j
iGSPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZY T^^`PO ST^ ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY JgK OP^[T_P ^PaP]LW ^_]ZYR bL]YTYR^ _SL_ OZTYR ^Z bZ`WO
SL]X H(F( YL_TZYLW ^PN`]T_d LYO JgK _SL_ _SP RZaP]YXPY_^ ZQ ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ JgK NZ`WO YZ_
R`L]LY_PP _SP ^LQP_d LYO bPWW'MPTYR ZQ GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ ]P_`]YTYR _Z _SPT] NZ`Y_]d ZQ Z]TRTY& YZ] _SP H(F('
NT_TePY NSTWO]PY _SL_ bZ`WO MP _]LaPWTYR bT_S _SPX(j
' ;CK?PLN -L@ 5CKCKBCU" ELYVTYR APXMP] ZQ _SP FPYL_P <Z]PTRY EPWL_TZY^ 8ZXXT__PP& TY ST^ ALd
.& ,*+2 WP__P] _Z _SP =ZaP]YXPY_ 6NNZ`Y_LMTWT_d CQQTNP
;=55,9>
7L^PO ZY LY TYaP^_TRL_TZY Md FPYL_P <Z]PTRY EPWL_TZY^ 8ZXXT__PP $F<E8% 9PXZN]L_TN F_LQQ& _SP IL^STYR_ZY
DZ^_ ]PWPL^PO LY Pc_PY^TaP ]P[Z]_ ZY SZb G]`X[ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY ZQQTNTLW^ TRYZ]PO bL]YTYR^ Q]ZX H(F( OT[WZXL_^
LMZ`_ PYOTYR _SP GPX[Z]L]d D]Z_PN_PO F_L_`^ $GDF% OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^(
CaP] X`W_T[WP XZY_S^& F<E8 9PXZN]L_TN F_LQQ NZYO`N_PO L NZX[]PSPY^TaP TY'[P]^ZY ]PaTPb ZQ _SP 9P[L]_XPY_
ZQ F_L_Pk^ ]ZWP TY _SP _P]XTYL_TZY ZQ _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^& TYNWÒTYR _SP
PcLXTYL_TZY ZQ _SP QZWWZbTYR `YNWL^^TQTPO OZN`XPY_^4
" 6Y CN_ZMP] -+& ,*+1 WP__P] Q]ZX _SPY'FPN]P_L]d ZQ F_L_P EPc GTWWP]^ZY _Z _SPY'6N_TYR FPN]P_L]d ZQ
>ZXPWLYO FPN`]T_d ;WLTYP 9`VP& bSTNS NZY_LTYPO ST^ ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY^ ZY GDF5
"
" 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ F_L_P EPNZXXPYOL_TZY^ EPRL]OTYR GDF QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^& bSTNS
LNNZX[LYTPO _SPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZYk^ CN_ZMP] -+& ,*+1 WP__P]5 LYO
" 9T[WZXL_TN NLMWP^ Q]ZX _SP H(F( ;XML^^TP^ TY ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ ]PWL_PO _Z _SP
;XML^^TP^k ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY^ ]PRL]OTYR GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ $8LMWP Y`XMP]^4 FLY FLWaLOZ] 20*& OL_PO
@`Wd 1& ,*+15 DZ]_'L`'D]TYNP ,1..& OL_PO 6`R`^_ -& ,*+15 LYO GPR`NTRLW[L 0+2& OL_PO @`YP ,3&
,*+1%(
F<E8 9PXZN]L_TN F_LQQ OP_P]XTYPO _SL_ _SPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZYk^ ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY _SL_ _SP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ
>ZXPWLYO FPN`]T_d $9>F% ^SZ`WO _P]XTYL_P _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ bL^ _SP
]P^`W_ ZQ LY ZaP]_Wd [ZWT_TNLW []ZNP^^( GSL_ []ZNP^^ OPWTMP]L_PWd OT^]PRL]OPO _SP NZ`Y^PW LYO Pc[P]_T^P ZQ
ZQQTNTLW^ L_ _SP F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ LYO _SP H(F( ;XML^^TP^ TY LWW _S]PP NZ`Y_]TP^& bSTNS `YTQZ]XWd L]R`PO QZ] LY
Pc_PY^TZY ZQ _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^( F<E8 9PXZN]L_TN F_LQQ LW^Z OP_P]XTYPO _SL_ _SP IST_P >Z`^P 9ZXP^_TN
DZWTNd 8Z`YNTW ^Z`RS_ ]P[PL_POWd _Z TYQW`PYNP _SP OPNT^TZY'XLVTYR []ZNP^^P^ L_ _SP F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ LYO 9>F
TY Z]OP] _Z PY^`]P L []P'OP_P]XTYPO Z`_NZXP4 _SP _P]XTYL_TZY ZQ GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] LWW _S]PP NZ`Y_]TP^(
AZ]PZaP]& TY T^^`TYR ST^ ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY _Z _P]XTYL_P _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T LYO
>ZYO`]L^& _SPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZY TRYZ]PO L MZOd ZQ PaTOPYNP LMZ`_ _SP YPRL_TaP NZY^P\`PYNP^ QZ] H(F(
YL_TZYLW ^PN`]T_d LYO ]T^V^ _Z _SP [Sd^TNLW ^LQP_d ZQ GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ LYO _SP H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY _SL_ XLd
LNNZX[LYd _SPX _Z _SPT] NZ`Y_]d ZQ Z]TRTY(
?Y _SP LQ_P]XL_S ZQ _SP IL^STYR_ZY DZ^_ ]P[Z]_& QZ]XP] H(F( 6XML^^LOZ]^ Q`]_SP] NL`_TZYPO LMZ`_ _SP [P]TW^ ZQ
PYOTYR GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] _SP^P NZ`Y_]TP^& LYO WPLOTYR TYOP[PYOPY_ Pc[P]_^ STRSWTRS_PO _SP ]PNVWP^^ YL_`]P
LYO N]`PW NZY^P\`PYNP^ ZQ _SP 6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ OPNT^TZY(
<FC =$;$ .LKENCOO A?KKLP GEKLNC PFCOC ALKAIQOGLKO" RFGAF BCJ?KB @GM?NPGO?K ?APGLK$
;CANCP?NT LD ;P?PC 8LJMCL JQOP NCCS?JGKC FGO MNCBCACOOLNVO DI?RCB BCAGOGLK ?KB GOOQC ? KCR
NCALJJCKB?PGLK PF?P MNLMCNIT ?BBNCOOCO PFC NGOHO PL =$;$ K?PGLK?I OCAQNGPT ?KB PFC O?DCPT LD <8;
@CKCDGAG?NGCO ?KB PFCGN =$;$#AGPGUCK AFGIBNCK$
5,36 .76.4=;376;
" ?Y ST^ CN_ZMP] -+& ,*+1 WP__P] ]PNZXXPYOTYR _P]XTYL_TZY ZQ _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ] LYO
>ZYO`]L^& _SPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZY ZM^P]aPO _SL_ _SP OPNT^TZY bZ`WO WTVPWd []ZX[_ L iMLNVWL^Sj _ZbL]O^
_SP HYT_PO F_L_P^ LYO i`YOP]XTYPj H(F( QZ]PTRY [ZWTNd ZMUPN_TaP^ TY 8PY_]LW 6XP]TNL(
" GSPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZY LW^Z ^_L_PO TY ST^ CN_ZMP] -+& ,*+1 WP__P] _SL_ PYOTYR _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ]
;W FLWaLOZ] LYO >ZYO`]L^ XLd WPLO _Z i]P_LWTL_Z]d LN_TZY^j Md MZ_S RZaP]YXPY_^ _SL_ bZ`WO MP NZ`Y_P]
_Z H(F( YL_TZYLW ^PN`]T_d TY_P]P^_^& TYNWÒTYR L [Z_PY_TLW ]PO`N_TZY TY MTWL_P]LW NZZ[P]L_TZY _Z LOO]P^^
YL]NZ_TN^ _]LQQTNVTYR LYO _SP TWWTNT_ LN_TaT_TP^ ZQ N]TXTYLW RLYR^& ^`NS L^ AF'+-(
" ?Y _SP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ F_L_P EPNZXXPYOL_TZY^ EPRL]OTYR GDF QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T LYO >ZYO`]L^& _SP
F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ XLTY_LTYPO _SL_ LWW _S]PP RZaP]YXPY_^ WLNVPO ^`QQTNTPY_ NL[LNT_d _Z ]P[L_]TL_P _PY^ ZQ
_SZ`^LYO^ ZQ TYOTaTO`LW^ LYO _SP]PQZ]P bZ`WO YZ_ MP LMWP _Z R`L]LY_PP _SP ^LQP_d ZQ ]P_`]YTYR NT_TePY^ LYO
_SPT] LNNZX[LYdTYR H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY(
" GSP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ F_L_P EPNZXXPYOL_TZY^ EPRL]OTYR GDF QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ] LYO >ZYO`]L^ L^^P^^PO _SL_
_SP []PaLWPYNP ZQ aTZWPYNP LYO WLNV ZQ PNZYZXTN Z[[Z]_`YT_TP^ TY MZ_S NZ`Y_]TP^ bZ`WO WPLaP ^ZXP
]P[L_]TL_PO GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ LYO _SPT] LNNZX[LYdTYR H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY a`WYP]LMWP _Z ]PN]`T_XPY_ _Z
N]TXTYLW RLYR^& ^`NS L^ AF'+-& Z] Z_SP] QZ]X^ ZQ TWWTNT_ PX[WZdXPY_(
#
" ?Y _SP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ F_L_P EPNZXXPYOL_TZY^ EPRL]OTYR GDF QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ] LYO _SP OT[WZXL_TN NLMWP
Q]ZX _SP H(F( ;XML^^d TY ;W FLWaLOZ]& _SP F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ LYO _SP H(F( ;XML^^d L^^P]_PO _SL_ WTXT_PO
RZaP]YXPY_ NL[LNT_d& _SP []PaLWPYNP ZQ aTZWPYNP& LYO WTXT_PO PNZYZXTN Z[[Z]_`YT_TP^ XPLY_ _SL_
]P[L_]TL_TYR XZ]P _SLY +3*&*** GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ h bSZ XLd MP LNNZX[LYTPO Md XZ]P _SLY ,**&***
H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY h bZ`WO WTVPWd LNNPWP]L_P iTWWPRLW TXXTR]L_TZYj _Z _SP HYT_PO F_L_P^(
" GSP 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ F_L_P EPNZXXPYOL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ ^_L_PO _SL_ T_ bZ`WO YZ_
MP NZY_]L]d _Z H(F( YL_TZYLW TY_P]P^_^ _Z LWWZb GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ Q]ZX LWW _S]PP NZ`Y_]TP^ _Z ]PXLTY TY _SP
HYT_PO F_L_P^(
" ?Y OT[WZXL_TN NLMWP^& ZQQTNTLW^ L_ _SP H(F( ;XML^^TP^ TY ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ LWW ^_L_PO _SL_ T_
bZ`WO MP TY _SP iH(F( YL_TZYLW TY_P]P^_j _Z ]PYPb _SP GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] _SPT] ]P^[PN_TaP NZ`Y_]TP^(
" ?Y L OT[WZXL_TN NLMWP& ZQQTNTLW^ Q]ZX _SP H(F( ;XML^^d TY >LT_T ZM^P]aPO _SL_ ]P[L_]TL_TYR _PY^ ZQ
_SZ`^LYO^ ZQ GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ bZ`WO [Z^P NSLWWPYRP^ _Z _SP >LT_TLY BL_TZYLW DZWTNPk^ LMTWT_d _Z
R`L]LY_PP ^PN`]T_d _S]Z`RSZ`_ _SP NZ`Y_]d(
" ?Y L OT[WZXL_TN NLMWP& ZQQTNTLW^ Q]ZX _SP H(F( ;XML^^d TY ;W FLWaLOZ] XLTY_LTYPO _SL_ PYOTYR _SP GDF
OP^TRYL_TZY NZ`WO WPLO _Z L ]P^[ZY^P Md _SP =ZaP]YXPY_ ZQ ;W FLWaLOZ] _SL_ `YOP]XTYP^ MTWL_P]LW PQQZ]_^
_Z LOO]P^^ _]LY^YL_TZYLW N]TXTYLW Z]RLYTeL_TZY^ LYO N]TXTYLW RLYR^ ^`NS L^ AF'+-(
" GSPY'FPN]P_L]d GTWWP]^ZYk^ ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY TY ST^ CN_ZMP] -+& ,*+1 WP__P] _Z _P]XTYL_P _SP GDF
OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO >ZYO`]L^ OT^]PRL]OPO _SP ]PNZXXPYOL_TZY^ ZQ _SP H(F(
;XML^^TP^ TY PLNS NZ`Y_]d& L^ bPWW L^ L^^P^^XPY_^ Md _SP F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ LYO _SP _S]PP H(F( ;XML^^TP^
]PRL]OTYR _SP WTVPWd NSLWWPYRP^ QZ] H(F( YL_TZYLW ^PN`]T_d LYO _SP ]T^V^ _Z _SP ^LQP_d ZQ GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^
]P_`]YTYR _Z _SPT] NZ`Y_]d ZQ Z]TRTY bT_S LNNZX[LYdTYR H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY(
" GSP IST_P >Z`^P 9ZXP^_TN DZWTNd 8Z`YNTW ^Z`RS_ _Z ]P[PL_POWd TYQW`PYNP _SP OPNT^TZY'XLVTYR
[]ZNP^^P^ L_ _SP F_L_P 9P[L]_XPY_ LYO 9>F TY Z]OP] _Z PY^`]P L []P'OP_P]XTYPO Z`_NZXP _SL_ bZ`WO
LOaLYNP _SP 6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ [ZWT_TNLW LRPYOL ZY TXXTR]L_TZY(
;<,<=<79> ,=<2793<> 179 <8;
8Z`Y_]d ?YOTaTO`LW^ bT_S GDFJ+K # ZQ H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY ZQ

GDF 7PYPQTNTL]TP^J,K
;W FLWaLOZ] ,0,&/,0 +3,&1**
>LT_T /2&//1 /-&/**
>ZYO`]L^ 20&*-+ ,1&***
<LP?I )%*"&&) '*("'%%
9L_L []ZaTOPO _Z _SP 8ZYR]P^^TZYLW EP^PL]NS FP]aTNP Md H(F( 8T_TePY LYO ?XXTR]L_TZY FP]aTNP^ L^ ZQ CN_ZMP]
,*+1 TYOTNL_P^ _SL_ XZ]P _SLY .**&*** [PZ[WP Q]ZX ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T LYO >ZYO`]L^ bP]P MPYPQTNTL]TP^ ZQ GDF(
;^_TXL_P^ Md _SP 8PY_P] QZ] ATR]L_TZY F_ÒTP^ ^SZb _SL_ GDF MPYPQTNTL]TP^ Q]ZX _SP _S]PP NZ`Y_]TP^ SLaP XZ]P
_SLY ,1*&*** H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY( GST^ NZXMTYPO _Z_LW `YOP]^NZ]P^ _SP S`XLY TX[LN_ ZQ _SP G]`X[
6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ QWLbPO OPNT^TZY LYO XL]V^ L OP[L]_`]P Q]ZX WZYR^_LYOTYR TY_P][]P_L_TZY ZQ H(F( ^_L_`_P(
FTYNP +33*& QPOP]LW TXXTR]L_TZY WLb SL^ []ZaTOPO L ^_L_`_Z]d XPNSLYT^X Md bSTNS LWTPY^ []P^PY_ TY _SP HYT_PO
F_L_P^ Q]ZX NZ`Y_]TP^ QLNTYR L]XPO NZYQWTN_& YL_`]LW OT^L^_P]& Z] Z_SP] Pc_]LZ]OTYL]d NZYOT_TZY^ NLY _PX[Z]L]TWd
$
]PXLTY LYO bZ]V TY _SP HYT_PO F_L_P^( HYOP] FPN_TZY ,.. ZQ _SP ?B6& 9>F TY NZY^`W_L_TZY bT_S _SP F_L_P
9P[L]_XPY_ XLd OP^TRYL_P L NZ`Y_]d QZ] GDF ZY ZYP ZQ _SP QZWWZbTYR R]Z`YO^J-K4
" GSP]P T^ LY ZYRZTYR L]XPO NZYQWTN_ _SL_ []PaPY_^ _SP ^LQP ]P_`]Y ZQ YL_TZYLW^ Q]ZX _SL_ NZ`Y_]d5
" GSP]P SL^ MPPY LY PYaT]ZYXPY_LW OT^L^_P] TY _SP NZ`Y_]d $^`NS L^ LY PL]_S\`LVP& QWZZO& O]Z`RS_& Z]
P[TOPXTN% _SL_ ^`M^_LY_TLWWd OT^]`[_^ WTaTYR NZYOT_TZY^ TY _SP L]PL LQQPN_PO5 _SP NZ`Y_]d T^ `YLMWP _Z
LOP\`L_PWd SLYOWP _SP ]P_`]Y ZQ LWTPY YL_TZYLW^5 LYO _SP NZ`Y_]d SL^ ZQQTNTLWWd ]P\`P^_PO GDF OP^TRYL_TZY5
Z]
" GSP]P L]P "Pc_]LZ]OTYL]d LYO _PX[Z]L]d NZYOT_TZY^" TY _SP QZ]PTRY NZ`Y_]d _SL_ []PaPY_ LWTPY YL_TZYLW^
Q]ZX ^LQPWd ]P_`]YTYR $`YWP^^ _SP LRPYNd QTYO^ _SL_ [P]XT__TYR _SP LWTPY^ _Z ]PXLTY _PX[Z]L]TWd TY _SP
HYT_PO F_L_P^ T^ NZY_]L]d _Z _SP YL_TZYLW TY_P]P^_ ZQ _SP HYT_PO F_L_P^%(
HYOP] _SP GDF ^_L_`_P& _SP FPN]P_L]d X`^_ [P]TZOTNLWWd ]P'PaLW`L_P NZ`Y_]d OP^TRYL_TZY^( 6_ WPL^_ 0* OLd^ MPQZ]P
L [L]_TN`WL] OP^TRYL_TZY Pc[T]P^& _SP FPN]P_L]d X`^_ i]PaTPb _SP NZYOT_TZY^ TY _SP QZ]PTRY ^_L_Pg QZ] bSTNS L
OP^TRYL_TZY T^ TY PQQPN_j LYO OP_P]XTYP bSP_SP] _SP NZ`Y_]d ^_TWW XPP_^ _SP NZYOT_TZY^ QZ] GDF(J.K GST^ [P]TZOTN'
]PaTPb ]P\`T]PXPY_ LW^Z PY_LTW^ NZY^`W_L_TZY^ bT_S L[[]Z[]TL_P RZaP]YXPY_ LRPYNTP^ LYO [`MWTNL_TZY ZQ YZ_TNP TY
_SP <POP]LW EPRT^_P](
6W_SZ`RS GDF& Md T_^ _P]X^& T^ L _PX[Z]L]d OP^TRYL_TZY& 9>F SL^ ]P[PL_POWd Pc_PYOPO GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ TY
XLYd TY^_LYNP^( HYOP] MZ_S EP[`MWTNLY LYO 9PXZN]L_TN 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY^& GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ SLaP MPPY ]PR`WL]Wd
Pc_PYOPO ML^PO ZY L SZWT^_TN L^^P^^XPY_ ZQ _SP NZ`Y_]TP^k LMTWT_d _Z ]P[L_]TL_P LYO ]PLM^Z]M _SPT] NT_TePY^( HYOP]
[]PaTZ`^ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY^& 9>F ]PR`WL]Wd NZY^TOP]PO TY_P]aPYTYR YL_`]LW OT^L^_P]^& NZYQWTN_^& LYO Z_SP] ^P]TZ`^
^ZNTLW Z] PNZYZXTN []ZMWPX^ L^ ]PWPaLY_ QLN_Z]^ bSPY OPNTOTYR bSP_SP] _Z NZY_TY`P Z] TY^_PLO _P]XTYL_P L GDF
OP^TRYL_TZY(
>ZbPaP]& `YOP] _SP G]`X[ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY& 9>F SL^ LOZ[_PO L YPb LYO ^_]TN_ TY_P][]P_L_TZY ZQ _SP ^_L_`_P
RZaP]YTYR GDF( GSP 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY L]R`P^ _SL_ GDF NLY ZYWd MP ]PYPbPO TQ iNZYOT_TZY^ `[ZY bSTNS _SP
NZ`Y_]dk^ Z]TRTYLW OP^TRYL_TZY bL^ ML^POj bT_S iLY L^^P^^XPY_ ZQ bSP_SP] _SZ^P Z]TRTYL_TYR NZYOT_TZY^ NZY_TY`P
_Z PcT^_(jJ/K GST^ TY_P][]P_L_TZY ]P^`W_PO TY _SP _P]XTYL_TZY ZQ GDF OP^TRYL_TZY^ QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T& LYO
>ZYO`]L^(
GST^ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ _P]XTYL_TZY ZQ GDF QZ] ;W FLWaLOZ]& >LT_T LYO >ZYO`]L^ T^ L]R`LMWd NZY_]L]d _Z L NWPL]
]PLOTYR ZQ _SP ^_L_`_P LYO O]L^_TNLWWd OP[L]_^ Q]ZX [L^_ []LN_TNP Md aL]TZ`^ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY^ _SL_ NZY^TOP]PO L
aL]TP_d ZQ QLN_Z]^ LYO NZYOT_TZY^ _SL_ [L]_TLWWd PcT^_PO Z] OTO YZ_ PcT^_ L_ _SP _TXP ZQ _SP Z]TRTYLW GDF OP^TRYL_TZY
bSPY Pc_PYOTYR GDF( GSP TY_P][]P_L_TZY ZQ _SP GDF ^_L_`_P Md _ST^ 6OXTYT^_]L_TZY T^ Pc_]PXPWd _]Z`MWTYR LYO
STRSWd ^`^[PN_ RTaPY _SP 6OXTYT^_]L_TZYk^ LY_T'TXXTR]LY_ [ZWTNTP^(
J+K
8ZYR]P^^TZYLW EP^PL]NS FP]aTNP& Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues $@LY( +1& ,*+2%
%
J,K
8PY_P] QZ] ATR]L_TZY F_ÒTP^& A Statistical and Demographic Profile of the U.S. Temporary Protected Status
Populations from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti $6`R`^_ ,*+1% available L_
S__[4))NX^Yd(Z]R)[`MWTNL_TZY^)UXS^'_[^'PW^LWaLOZ]'SZYO`]L^'SLT_T)
J-K
2 H(F(8( f+,/.L$M%$+%(
J.K
2 H(F(8( f+,/.L$M%$-%(
J/K
H(F( 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ >ZXPWLYO FPN`]T_d& Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announcement
on Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador $@LY( 2& ,*+2% available
at S__[^4))bbb(OS^(RZa)YPb^),*+2)*/)*.)^PN]P_L]d'SZXPWLYO'^PN`]T_d'VT]^_UPY'X'YTPW^PY'LYYZ`YNPXPY_'
_PX[Z]L]d'[]Z_PN_PO5 H(F( 9P[L]_XPY_ ZQ >ZXPWLYO FPN`]T_d& Acting Secretary Elaine Duke Announcement On
Temporary Protected Status for Haiti $BZa( ,*& ,*+1% available at
S__[^4))bbb(OS^(RZa)YPb^),*+1)++),*)LN_TYR'^PN]P_L]d'PWLTYP'O`VP'LYYZ`YNPXPY_'_PX[Z]L]d'[]Z_PN_PO'^_L_`^'
SLT_T
&

Saget v. Trump, Plaintiffs' Motion For A Complete Record

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Saget v. Trump, Plaintiffs' Motion For A Complete Record

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:18-cv-01599-WFK-ST Document 31 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 521

July 23, 2018

BY ECF Mayer Brown LLP

Dear Judge Tiscione:

July 23, 2018

July 23, 2018

July 23, 2018

By: /s/ Ira J. Kurzban By: /s/ Sejal Zota

By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Pipoly

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 CRISTA RAMOS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01554-EMC

19 Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a

25 “determination” in Section 1254a refers to an individual designation, termination, or extension of

1 than a group of decisions or a practice or procedure employed in making decisions.”); Reno v.

10 B. Claims on the Merits

14 Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency to provide a “reasoned explanation” for

4 Secretary of Homeland Security is the decisionmaker designated by statute, Plaintiffs have

13 immigration officials to engage in such behavior as rounding up all immigration parolees of a

22 See Kwai Fun Wong, 373 U.S. at 970.

25 order supplemental briefing or entertain a motion for reconsideration if appropriate. Defendants‟

26 motion to dismiss is provisionally DENIED.

22 For these reasons, Defendants‟ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

23 C. Production of Administrative Records and Discovery

26 The administrative record is not limited to “formal recommendations.” Rather, the

14 Finally, as discussed on the record, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs‟ Interrogatory

17 the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

18 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 20 and 28.

22 Dated: June 25, 2018

#0/-" ;CH@J ?MQ@

"+*(. ,127>=F (C1= J%>@486= -4;1B8>=AK

<7+ ?Y_P]P^_PO DL]_TP^

;<,<=<79> ,=<2793<> 179 <8;

8Z`Y_]d ?YOTaTO`LW^ bT_S GDFJ+K # ZQ H(F('NT_TePY NSTWO]PY ZQ

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi