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

Opinion

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

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

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

-3- MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

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

‘ Celena Heredia Nelson

-4. MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF