1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY Case No.: 19-CV-462-GPC-BGS INSTITUTE, 12

13 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING JOINT STIPULATION 14 v. 15 OFFICE OF REFUGEE (ECF No. 16.) 16 RESETTLEMENT, 17 ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, United States 18 Department of Health and Human 19 Services; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 20 ENFORCEMENT, United States 21 Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND 22 BORDER PROTECTION, United 23 States Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES 24 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 25 SECURITY,

26 Defendants. 27 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,

(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 FOJA 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. (/d.) 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 2, 2020 / 3 aptho CxS / 27 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge