Najafi v. Pompeo

Background

Plaintiffs challenged defendants’ alleged withholding of adjudications—decisions—on case-by-case waiver requests under Presidential Proclamation 9645. The proclamation restricts the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from Iran and other countries, while allowing consular officers to grant waivers under certain circumstances.

The order addressed two pending matters: a discovery letter concerning plaintiffs’ interrogatories and plaintiffs’ request for a case-management conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).

Discovery Letter

The interrogatories sought information relevant to determining whether entry by beneficiary plaintiffs would threaten U.S. national security or public safety.

The court found defendants’ responses sufficient. For Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 22, defendants identified specific information previously requested by consular officers. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants also had to identify where the waiver-adjudication process addressed that information because the interrogatories asked what specific information was still needed. The court stated that defendants must supplement their responses if information later received from the beneficiary plaintiffs creates a need for more information.

The court also found sufficient defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos. 23 through 25, which referred back to Interrogatory No. 22 because those interrogatories concerned derivative applicants whose waiver consideration depended on the primary applicant’s waiver consideration.

For Interrogatory Nos. 7, 9, 11, and 13, defendants stated that no information was needed, while acknowledging that a consular officer might request more information later. The court found that response sufficient and again noted that supplementation would be required if additional information became necessary.

For Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, and 19, defendants stated that no information was needed and that an enhanced automated interagency national-security and law-enforcement review was underway. The court found that no further response could be provided at that time.

The court therefore DENIED plaintiffs’ request to compel further responses to the specified interrogatories.

Rule 26(f) Conference

A Rule 26(f) conference requires the parties to exchange required disclosures and develop a proposed discovery plan while considering the nature and basis of their claims and defenses. Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss while plaintiffs were seeking the conference. Because the pleadings and the scope of the claims were not settled, the court found that the conference was premature.

The court DENIED plaintiffs’ request for a Rule 26(f) case-management conference.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore denied both requests addressed in the order: plaintiffs’ request to compel further discovery responses and plaintiffs’ request for a Rule 26(f) conference. The order did not decide the underlying challenge concerning the waiver adjudications.