David K. Hausman v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security

N.D. California

David K. Hausman v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DecidedJune 25, 2026

Docket4:26-cv-03730

StatusUnknown

This text of David K. Hausman v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (David K. Hausman v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David K. Hausman v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) kdermody@lchb.com 2 Celena Heredia Nelson (State Bar No. 356840) chnelson@lchb.com 3 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 5 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 6 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Journalists, Media Organizations, Researchers, and Professors 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID K. HAUSMAN, Case No. 4:26-cv-03730-AMO 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF PROPOSED AMICI CURIAE 13 v. JOURNALISTS, MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, RESEARCHERS AND 14 UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND PROFESSORS CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. 15 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 SECURITY, Time: 2:00pm 16 Courtroom: 10 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín 17 Action Filed: April 29, 2026 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 The Acacia Center for Justice, Yulia Almazova (Freelance Journalist), Asad L. Asad 3 (Assistant Professor at Stanford), CBS Broadcasting Inc., Wayne A. Cornelius (Professor at U.C. 4 San Diego), Logan M. Davis (The Colorado Times Recorder), Diana Dominguez (Investigative 5 Reporter), Dow Jones & Company d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, Chloe N. East (Associate 6 Professor of Economics at University of Colorado Boulder), Andrew Free (Freelance Journalist), 7 Human Rights Watch, Jennifer A. Jones (Associate Professor at Northwestern), David Leblag 8 (Professor at University of Virginia), The Marshall Project, Mission Local, NC Local, The New 9 York Times Company, Joseph Nwadiuko (Assistant Professor at University of Pennsylvania), 10 Annette Dekker (Assistant Professor at U.C. Los Angeles), Paul Ong (Professor at U.C. Los 11 Angeles), Nancy Plankey-Videla (Associate Professor Texas A&M), Yael Schacher (Director for 12 the Americas and Europe, Refugees International), Jayashri Srikantiah (Professor at Stanford Law 13 School), Stop AAPI Hate, and Tara Watson (Director and Senior Fellow at the Brookings 14 Institution) (collectively, “Proposed Amici”) respectfully move for leave to file, as amici curiae, 15 the brief attached hereto as Exhibit 1 in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 16 (ECF No. 12). Amici’s Statements of Interest are contained within Exhibit 1 as Appendix A. 17 Amici’s Disclosures are attached as Exhibit 2. 18 Proposed Amici sent Defendants’ counsel the brief and motion and sought Defendants’ 19 consent to file. The government declined to state its position as of the time of this filing. 20 ARGUMENT 21 Proposed Amici are 25 U.S. based media organizations, journalists, researchers, and 22 professors all of whom have utilized the data Plaintiff seeks. Each organization and individual is 23 committed to informing the public about the government’s immigration enforcement actions. 24 Proposed Amici seek to file the attached brief to amplify the critical need for timely production of 25 the Spreadsheets at issue by ICE and provide the court with information about how the data is 26 being utilized. 27 District courts have “broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 28 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds. Particularly where the subject litigation 1 carries “potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has ‘unique 2 information or perspective[s] that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the 3 parties are able to provide,’” amicus participation is often allowed. N.G.V. Gaming, Ltd. v. 4 Upstream Point Molate, L.L.C., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. 5 Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). 6 Although Amici raise some of the same legal issues regarding FOIA’s requirements, their 7 Statements of Interest provide important context for this lawsuit and support for Plaintiff’s claim. 8 See California by and through Becerra v. U.S. Dept. of the Int., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 9 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[I]t is inapposite that an amicus brief raises the same issues as the parties’ 10 briefs. The salient question is whether such brief is helpful to the Court. In this case, the [] brief is 11 useful in that it amplifies a number of points raised in parties’ papers.”). Notably, Amici’s’ 12 individual statements attesting to the harm they would suffer should ICE continue stonewalling 13 and should DDP data not be regularly updated, supports Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. 14 Here, Proposed Amici and their subscribers, readers, and students will suffer irreparable 15 harm if a preliminary injunction does not issue to enable Proposed Amici to regularly access data 16 from ICE regarding its enforcement actions. ICE’s unlawful stonewalling of FOIA requests has, 17 in many cases, resulted in extended periods of time during which the American public has 18 virtually zero information regarding enforcement practices. For those periods of time, irreparable 19 harm has already been done. Proposed Amici respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion 20 for Leave so that Proposed Amici may provide this additional perspective to the Court for its 21 consideration. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Dated: May 20, 2026 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2

By: 4 Kelly M/Dermody 5 Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) kdermody@Ichb.com 6 Celena Heredia Nelson (State Bar No. 356840) chnelson@lchb.com 7 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 9 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 10 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Journalists, Media Organizations, Researchers, and Professors 12 13

KD £0 1 cy S NITED 7 > GRA , 18 ~ of) < p. Bs OD rs per Ogun Z. i Martines Be 20 O Judge Axack iS oO “> DATED: 6/25/2026 vy 22 eR © Ly dD 7 OS 23 ISTRIC 24 25 26 27 28

-3- MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

1 ATTESTATION OF FILER—LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) 2 I, Celena Heredia Nelson, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 3 || obtained from the signatories shown above. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 4 || is true and correct.

‘ Celena Heredia Nelson 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4. MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) kdermody@lchb.com 2 Celena Heredia Nelson (State Bar No. 356840) chnelson@lchb.com 3 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 5 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 6 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Journalists, Media Organizations, Researchers, and Professors 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID K. HAUSMAN, Case No. 4:26-cv-03730-AMO 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF PROPOSED AMICI CURIAE 13 v. JOURNALISTS, MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, RESEARCHERS AND 14 UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND PROFESSORS CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. 15 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 SECURITY, Time: 2:00pm 16 Courtroom: 10 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín 17 Action Filed: April 29, 2026 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 The Acacia Center for Justice, Yulia Almazova (Freelance Journalist), Asad L. Asad 3 (Assistant Professor at Stanford), CBS Broadcasting Inc., Wayne A. Cornelius (Professor at U.C. 4 San Diego), Logan M. Davis (The Colorado Times Recorder), Diana Dominguez (Investigative 5 Reporter), Dow Jones & Company d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, Chloe N. East (Associate 6 Professor of Economics at University of Colorado Boulder), Andrew Free (Freelance Journalist), 7 Human Rights Watch, Jennifer A. Jones (Associate Professor at Northwestern), David Leblag 8 (Professor at University of Virginia), The Marshall Project, Mission Local, NC Local, The New 9 York Times Company, Joseph Nwadiuko (Assistant Professor at University of Pennsylvania), 10 Annette Dekker (Assistant Professor at U.C. Los Angeles), Paul Ong (Professor at U.C. Los 11 Angeles), Nancy Plankey-Videla (Associate Professor Texas A&M), Yael Schacher (Director for 12 the Americas and Europe, Refugees International), Jayashri Srikantiah (Professor at Stanford Law 13 School), Stop AAPI Hate, and Tara Watson (Director and Senior Fellow at the Brookings 14 Institution) (collectively, “Proposed Amici”) respectfully move for leave to file, as amici curiae, 15 the brief attached hereto as Exhibit 1 in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 16 (ECF No. 12). Amici’s Statements of Interest are contained within Exhibit 1 as Appendix A. 17 Amici’s Disclosures are attached as Exhibit 2. 18 Proposed Amici sent Defendants’ counsel the brief and motion and sought Defendants’ 19 consent to file. The government declined to state its position as of the time of this filing. 20 ARGUMENT 21 Proposed Amici are 25 U.S. based media organizations, journalists, researchers, and 22 professors all of whom have utilized the data Plaintiff seeks. Each organization and individual is 23 committed to informing the public about the government’s immigration enforcement actions. 24 Proposed Amici seek to file the attached brief to amplify the critical need for timely production of 25 the Spreadsheets at issue by ICE and provide the court with information about how the data is 26 being utilized. 27 District courts have “broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 28 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds. Particularly where the subject litigation 1 carries “potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has ‘unique 2 information or perspective[s] that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the 3 parties are able to provide,’” amicus participation is often allowed. N.G.V. Gaming, Ltd. v. 4 Upstream Point Molate, L.L.C., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. 5 Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). 6 Although Amici raise some of the same legal issues regarding FOIA’s requirements, their 7 Statements of Interest provide important context for this lawsuit and support for Plaintiff’s claim. 8 See California by and through Becerra v. U.S. Dept. of the Int., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 9 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[I]t is inapposite that an amicus brief raises the same issues as the parties’ 10 briefs. The salient question is whether such brief is helpful to the Court. In this case, the [] brief is 11 useful in that it amplifies a number of points raised in parties’ papers.”). Notably, Amici’s’ 12 individual statements attesting to the harm they would suffer should ICE continue stonewalling 13 and should DDP data not be regularly updated, supports Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief. 14 Here, Proposed Amici and their subscribers, readers, and students will suffer irreparable 15 harm if a preliminary injunction does not issue to enable Proposed Amici to regularly access data 16 from ICE regarding its enforcement actions. ICE’s unlawful stonewalling of FOIA requests has, 17 in many cases, resulted in extended periods of time during which the American public has 18 virtually zero information regarding enforcement practices. For those periods of time, irreparable 19 harm has already been done. Proposed Amici respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion 20 for Leave so that Proposed Amici may provide this additional perspective to the Court for its 21 consideration. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Dated: May 20, 2026 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2