Perez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Background

Kamephis Perez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this Freedom of Information Act case against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Perez sought documents concerning an internal complaint he filed against his direct supervisor, ICE Deputy Chief Counsel Khalilah Taylor. Perez claimed that his later transfer was retaliation for making the complaint and sought information about ICE’s investigation, including who learned about it.

ICE initially withheld responsive documents under the exemption for records whose disclosure could interfere with ongoing investigations. After the investigation closed, ICE relied on other exemptions. ICE later searched several offices and identified 461 pages of potentially responsive material. It determined that 172 pages were responsive, produced 166 pages with redactions, and withheld six responsive pages in full. ICE classified 289 pages as nonresponsive, meaning unrelated to Perez’s request.

The parties agreed to limit the lawsuit to ICE’s withholding of the six pages in full and its classification of the 289 pages as nonresponsive. They agreed that the remaining withholdings and the adequacy of ICE’s search were not disputed. After ICE changed the exemptions it asserted for the six pages, Perez attempted to challenge all of ICE’s withholdings and alleged bad faith.

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

The court had referred the parties’ motions to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. Judge Cott recommended denying both motions to strike, granting ICE’s motion for summary judgment, and denying Perez’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Neither party objected to the report and recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Motions to Strike

ICE asked the court to strike portions of Perez’s filings because one brief exceeded the page limit and Perez filed separate supporting and opposition briefs instead of one combined brief. Judge Cott found violations of the court’s rules and an earlier order but found no bad faith. The court exercised its discretion not to strike any part of Perez’s papers and denied ICE’s motion to strike.

Perez asked the court to strike ICE’s filing as exceeding the page limit for reply briefs. The court agreed with Judge Cott that ICE’s filing combined a reply supporting its own motion with an opposition to Perez’s motion and therefore was permitted the applicable page limit. The court denied Perez’s motion to strike.

Enforcement of the Litigation Agreement

The court enforced the parties’ agreement limiting the case to the six fully withheld pages and the 289 pages classified as nonresponsive. It rejected Perez’s argument that ICE’s changed exemption designations allowed him to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement. The court found that Perez had not shown that his agreement was not knowing and voluntary or that enforcing it would be manifestly unjust.

Six Pages Withheld in Full

The court applied Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which protects personnel, medical, and similar files when disclosure would clearly and unjustifiably invade personal privacy. The six pages contained interview statements from two witnesses given during ICE’s investigation of Perez’s allegations. The court concluded that the records were similar to personnel files because they contained personal information about ICE personnel and private individuals, including identifying information.

The court balanced the privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure. It found strong privacy interests because disclosure could identify witnesses and expose them to harassment, embarrassment, questioning, interference with official duties, reprisals, stigma, or reputational harm. By contrast, it found little public interest in disclosure because the records already produced to Perez contained the relevant details about the alleged misconduct, and identifying witnesses generally would not show what the government was doing.

The court also considered factors including Taylor’s rank, the seriousness and evidentiary support for the allegations, other ways to obtain the information, whether disclosure would illuminate government activity, and whether the information concerned job functions or personal matters. The court found that these factors, considered together, weighed against disclosure. It also rejected Perez’s bad-faith argument. Although ICE’s handling of the request was not perfect, the court concluded that the agency’s errors and changing explanations did not establish bad faith.

The court further held that ICE had adequately considered whether nonexempt portions could be separated and released. ICE had reviewed the records line by line and determined that partial disclosure could reveal witness identities or the substance of their statements. The court concluded that the six pages could therefore be withheld in full under Exemption 6.

289 Pages Classified as Nonresponsive

ICE described the 289 pages as belonging to eight categories of records unrelated to Perez’s allegations or not relied upon in the investigation. These included materials concerning unrelated immigration cases, criminal convictions, communications with private immigration attorneys, attorney-discipline correspondence, an ethics handbook, and records concerning a separate incident involving Perez.

The court rejected Perez’s argument that the documents were responsive merely because they had been found during ICE’s initial search. It also rejected his challenges to four categories of records, finding that his arguments relied on conjecture and unsupported assumptions. The court concluded that Perez had offered no evidence or persuasive argument showing that ICE’s nonresponsive determinations were incorrect.

Disposition

The court adopted Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted ICE’s motion for summary judgment, denied Perez’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied both parties’ motions to strike. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.