Case 3:19-cv-00462-GPC-BGS Document 17 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.96 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
THE CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE,
Case No.: 19-CV-462-GPC-BGS
Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING JOINT
STIPULATION
13
14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OFFICE OF REFUGEE
RESETTLEMENT,
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES, United States
Department of Health and Human
Services; UNITED STATES
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, United States
Department of Homeland Security;
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, United
States Department of Homeland
Security; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Defendants.
(ECF No. 16.)
Case 3:19-cv-00462-GPC-BGS Document 17 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.97 Page 2 of 2
1
On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff the Children’s Advocacy Institute and Defendants
2 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and United States Customs
3 and Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively “the Parties”) filed a joint stipulation and
4 requested an order from the Court recognizing that stipulation. (ECF No. 16.) A district
5 court may recognize stipulations submitted by the Parties in advance of trial by order. See
6 Labotest, Inc. v. Bonta, 297 F.3d 892, 894 (9th Cir. 2002) (reversing decision to deny
7 attorney fees pursuant to the language of a stipulation between the parties “because the
8 district court placed its stamp of approval on the relief obtained” in that stipulation when
9 it recognized the stipulation in an order).
10
Here, as in Labotest, the Parties’ joint stipulation seeks to limit the scope of the
11 pending lawsuit. The stipulation provides:
12
Without admitting liability or fault, the Parties stipulate and agree that, with
13
regards to the FOIA requests at issue in this case and which have been
14
produced in the course of this litigation from Plaintiff to Defendants ICE and
15
CBP (Compl. Exs. B and C) (“the FOIA requests”), Plaintiff does not
16
challenge or dispute the adequacy of ICE’s and CBP’s search for records
17
during this litigation, and Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute ICE’s and
18
CBP’s application of exemptions or withholdings to the production of records
19
during this litigation. Plaintiff does not challenge or dispute that ICE and CBP
20
have now satisfied their obligations to respond to the FOIA requests.
21 (ECF No. 16.)
22
As in Labotest, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the Parties’
23 joint motion for order on the stipulation and recognizes it as binding upon this matter.
24 The stipulation is ENTERED. (Id.)
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: March 2, 2020
27
28
2
19-CV-462-GPC-BGS