National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766

In a discovery dispute, the government sought relief from a pretrial order issued by Magistrate Judge Kim, who required declarations regarding communications related to TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for Venezuelans and Haitians.
Judge Kim ordered Secretary Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski to submit declarations under penalty of perjury on their use of personal devices for relevant communications.
The government objected, arguing the requirement was duplicative of an existing declaration from DHS Acting General Counsel Joseph Mazzara and constituted judicial overreach.
Plaintiffs offered a compromise: allow a knowledgeable third party to submit a declaration detailing the searches and custodial data for the relevant officials.
The government rejected the compromise, insisting the Mazzara declaration was sufficient.
District Judge Edward M. Chen reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order for clear error or contrary-to-law under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and concluded there was no such error, adopting Plaintiffs’ compromise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Mazzara Declaration	Did not adequately cover whether officials used personal devices for relevant communications	Declaration already covered relevant communication, new ones are duplicative and burdensome	Magistrate’s finding of insufficiency not clearly erroneous
Judicial Overreach in Requiring Declarations	Willing to compromise for declarations from knowledgeable non-apex individuals	Order constitutes judicial overreach into executive affairs	Judicial overreach argument moot due to Plaintiff’s proposal; compromise adopted
Discovery from Apex Officials	Sought limited discovery, proposing alternative less intrusive means	Sought to prevent any further apex-related discovery	Court accepts less intrusive declaration, not requiring apex-level (personal) declarations
Extension of Compliance Deadline	Urged timely compliance for summary judgment schedule	Requested additional time to evaluate appeal	Deadline set to July 7, 2025, balancing parties’ needs

Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (establishes clear error standard for district judge's review of magistrate rulings)
Burdick v. Comm'r Internal Rev. Serv., 979 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1992) (defines clear error as a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed")
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 282 F.R.D. 259 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discussing apex doctrine and discovery from high-ranking officials)