The underlying lawsuit, United Farm Workers et al. v. Noem et al., No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB, centers on two certified classes: people subjected to detentive stops by Border Patrol in the Eastern District of California without individualized reasonable suspicion, and people arrested without a warrant and without a pre-arrest probable-cause assessment. Both classes cover conduct since January 6, 2025. The complaint alleges that Border Patrol's conduct during Operation Return to Sender — and a more recent enforcement operation in Sacramento carried out as part of the nationwide Operation At Large — reflects a USBP-wide policy of unconstitutional stops and arrests.
The core discovery dispute was whether plaintiffs could obtain documents and ESI about all large-scale, multi-day immigration enforcement operations nationwide, or only those directly at issue in the district. The magistrate sided largely with defendants, holding that the importance of discovery concerning out-of-district operations in resolving the issues of whether constitutional violations occurred in this district plainly is outweighed by the burden or expense such discovery undoubtedly would entail.
The court sustained defendants' proportionality and overbreadth objections to ten specific requests for production, including RFP Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 23, 26, and 27 from the first set and Nos. 46, 53, and 55 from the second set. The court noted that plaintiffs' class definitions are limited to people stopped or arrested in this district, and that plaintiffs need not establish any nationwide policy or practice to prevail on their Fourth Amendment claims — distinguishing the case from Monell municipal-liability litigation, where proof of a broader policy is an element of the claim.
The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants should be compelled to provide hit reports for all disputed search terms, finding that where proposed search terms are facially overbroad, a requesting party has no entitlement to early hit reports. Instead, the magistrate ordered defendants to run a further ESI search across the same 22 custodians — largely associated with USBP's El Centro Sector, including defendant Bovino — using defendants' agreed search terms plus plaintiffs' proposed search terms Nos. 1, 6, and 12, and to produce hit reports from that run. Plaintiffs' request for entry of their proposed ESI order was denied without prejudice.
On the time period for production, the court rejected defendants' argument that discovery should be capped at November 2024 through July 2025. Because the certified classes include people who have been or will be subjected to stops and arrests, the court ordered that responsive materials be produced throughout the non-expert discovery period, subject to the parties' continuing supplementation obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). The court also rejected defendants' position that searches should be confined to El Centro Sector custodians, finding it unconvincing to presume that other offices within DHS and USBP outside that sector hold no responsive materials.
The parties agreed at the outset of the informal conference to be bound by the magistrate's order and reserved only the right to seek review by the assigned district judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).