U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ

A federal judge in Washington directed the government on Monday to process an open records request related to the largest workplace immigration raid conducted in nearly a decade.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by lawyers seeking the names of the ICE officers involved in that April 2018 raid in Tennessee. The agency has until the close of business Tuesday to process and release at least one record that contains the information  being sought by the plaintiff, the National Immigration Law Center.

But Contreras noted his order does not necessarily force the agency to turn over all of the  names, since ICE made redactions and argued FOIA exemptions. Arthur Bookout, an attorney representing NILC, suggested after Monday's hearing that the lawyers could be back in court soon.

Bookout, an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, was also joined Monday by firm partner Donald Salzman and associate Jason Levin.

Contreras' bench ruling came after a hearing Monday in which Bookout argued that ICE has failed to respond to a lawful FOIA request filed last December by NILC. Diana Valdivia, an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., said it was inappropriate for NILC to “jump the line” of FOIA requests, because ICE had already agreed to expedite it.

The case runs parallel to a lawsuit that was filed in February in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs in the case, which include seven people arrested in the raid and a class of similarly situated workers, are suing the raid's officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a federal officer's violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights can give rise to damage claims.

NILC, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other pro bono lawyers are representing the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case. In court papers, NILC said it brought the case in Washington to compel the release of the names because they're running up against an April 5 deadline to amend their Tennessee complaint to identify the ICE agents.

“This information is needed immediately because without it Doe Defendants will not be identified and individually named in the Raid Litigation prior to April 5, 2019, the one-year anniversary of the Raid,” the brief said. “As a result, NILC expects that the government, on behalf of the Doe Defendants, will claim that the one-year statute of limitations has expired and they can no longer be compelled to defend their actions.”

In court, Bookout contended that “significant public interest” in the matter outweighed any privacy exemptions the agency might raise. He said the FOIA request was narrowly tailored to seek only the names, ranks, and office locations for the agents.

Valdivia said the plaintiffs have the burden of showing the public interest outweighed the agents' privacy interests. Valdivia said NILC had nonetheless made “no evidentiary showing” to that effect. She said the argument was what the U.S. Supreme Court would describe as a “speculative allegation,” rather than evidence.

Valdivia also said that NILC had not previously made, or briefed, it's public-interest claim in court papers before Monday's hearing. She also argued that plaintiffs had not shown they would suffer irreparable injury. She was accompanied Monday by counsel from ICE.

The judge asked both Bookout and Valdivia whether there was a single document that contained the names of all the raid officials. Both said they were not sure. Valdivia said “search results” had not been returned yet, which could take 10 days from when a search was made.

Contreras had said Monday that he believed the situation would be “far better” dealt with in the context of discovery in the Tennessee case, rather than a FOIA lawsuit.

After a brief recess, Contreras said he will grant a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs face irreparable harm. He noted it was the agency's delay that created the emergency at issue.

Contreras noted that his order could be mooted depending on proceedings in the Tennessee case.