Kannika v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 9 ANNIE KANNIKA, et al., Case No. C20-547RSM 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 11 COMPEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF v. TIME 12 13 US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Production of A- 17 File Administrative Record” and Motion for “Temporary Abeyance of Motion Schedule.” Dkts. 18 19 #29 and #30. Plaintiffs again argue that they need more time to file a motion for summary 20 judgment because the administrative record provided to Plaintiff and the Court is incomplete 21 and unnecessarily redacted. 22 In this case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Plaintiffs are 23 “seeking review of a decision of the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), wherein 24 25 the agency denied Plaintiff Annie Kannika’s Petition for Alien Relative (I-130) seeking to 26 classify her husband, Yoeun Phoeun as a ‘immediate relative’ for the purpose of allowing him 27 to reside with her in the United States.”. Dkt. #1. To briefly summarize the issue before the 28 Court, Defendants have submitted to the Court an administrative record that they say was based 1 2 on what was before USCIS when it made its determination that the marriage between Mr. 3 Phoeun and Mrs. Krub was a “sham.” Plaintiffs argue that the entire “A-file”1 should be in the 4 administrative record, that they have obtained the entire A-file through a FOIA request, and that 5 certain documents are missing or unnecessarily redacted in the administrative record. 6 Plaintiffs have raised this issue with the Court previously. See Dkt. #14. On December 7 8 4, 2020, the Court issued an Order finding that “many of the issues initially raised in this 9 Motion has become moot as Defendants have clarified the nature of what was provided to 10 Plaintiffs and sent more material to Plaintiffs.” Dkt. #25. The Court extended the deadline for 11 Plaintiff to file summary judgment briefing and assumed that all issues would be promptly 12 13 resolved between the parties without further Court action. The Court once more extended the 14 deadline for summary judgment briefing based on a stipulation from the parties. Dkt. #28. The 15 latest deadline for Plaintiffs to file was January 6, 2021. 16 Instead of moving this case forward, on January 6 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motions. 17 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Abeyance of Motion Schedule states, in its entirety: 18 19 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement is due on January 6, 2021. For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 20 Production of A-File Administrative Record (Dkt. 29), Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to hold the motion schedule in abeyance 21 pending the outcome of the Court’s decision on that motion. 22 Dkt. #30 at 1–2. This is a motion for relief from the deadline and, under this Court’s Local 23 Rules, a motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in 24 25 advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline. “Parties 26 should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the existing deadline 27 1 The A-file at issue is, according to Plaintiffs, the complete agency record of Mr. Phoeun’s applications and 28 supporting evidence, submitted in connection with his eight-year marriage to U.S. Citizen Savy Krub and his current marriage to Annie Kannika. unless the court orders otherwise.” LCR 7(j). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not been 1 2 diligent in filing the instant Motion for Extension of Time. They have not set forth any 3 explanation for their delay in filing this Motion on the actual date of the deadline in question, 4 nor why they were unable to file their summary judgment motion in some form by the existing 5 deadline. The Motion could easily be denied on that basis. 6 The Court has looked at the parallel Motion to Compel and will rule on these together. 7 8 Although Plaintiff has previously stated, “Plaintiffs’ counsel is in possession of an 9 administrative record obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request that contains 670 10 pages,” Dkt. #14 at 2, the instant Motion to Compel seeks those very same records and states 11 “[w]ithout examining the entire body evidence that the agency had access to, Plaintiffs cannot 12 13 have confidence that they can make their full case,” Dkt. #29 at 3. These positions do not seem 14 consistent. Perhaps more logically, Plaintiffs argue that “the Court is also being denied access 15 to the record that the law requires the Defendants to place before it.” Id. However, Defendants 16 point out that “Plaintiffs could have, but have not, moved to supplement the record with specific 17 documents they claim to be relevant.” Dkt. #32 at 3. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have had 18 19 multiple opportunities to move this case forward, relying on those documents that were in the 20 administrative record or supplementing with documents that were obtained through a FOIA 21 request. Instead we are arguing about discovery months after the summary judgment briefing 22 was supposed to be filed. 23 In an APA action, the government is required to file a copy of the record of the agency 24 25 proceeding, which Defendants filed. When the government certifies an administrative record, 26 the government is entitled to a presumption that the record is the full, complete record, a 27 presumption that can only be rebutted with “clear evidence to the contrary.” Cook Inletkeeper 28 v. EPA, 400 F. App’x 239, 240 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs’ Motion is based on the assumption 1 2 that their entire A-files are the record of the agency proceeding in this case. They have not 3 shown such to be the case. Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence, much less “clear 4 evidence,” that the administrative record is missing files from the agency proceeding at issue. 5 Plaintiffs speculate as to what is missing and fail to point to specific documents from the FOIA, 6 redacted or otherwise, that they believe should have been included in the administrative record. 7 8 Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a need for specific documents. The Court also notes that this 9 Motion to Compel was filed too late for the Court to possibly grant relief in a timely fashion. 10 Given all of the above, the Court will deny the Motion to Compel and thus both Motions. 11 After Plaintiffs originally stipulated to file their motion for summary judgment on 12 13 October 19, 2020, see Dkt. #10, they have sought and obtained four extensions of time. Dkts. 14 #12, #16, #25, and #28. The Court does not entirely understand why Plaintiffs are delaying this 15 case but will grant no further extensions. Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the Court finds 16 and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motions, Dkts. #29 and #30, are DENIED. Plaintiff’s briefing is 17 past due. Plaintiffs are to file their summary judgment motion no later than Monday, January 18 19 25, 2021. The existing briefing schedule set forth at Dkt. #28 will otherwise remain unchanged. 20 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2021. 21 22 A 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28