(CA Bar 157750) [email protected] Eliz

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:4195

1 Timothy P. Fox (CA Bar 157750) [email protected] 2 Elizabeth Jordan* [email protected] 3 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 4 1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400 5 Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 757-7901 6 Fax: (303) 872-9072

7 Lisa Graybill* [email protected] Stuart Seaborn (CA Bar 198590) 8 Jared Davidson* [email protected] [email protected] Melissa Riess (CA Bar 295959) 9 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW [email protected] CENTER DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 10 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor 11 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Berkeley, California 94704 Tel: (504) 486-8982 Tel: (510) 665-8644 12 Fax: (504) 486-8947 Fax: (510) 665-8511

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE

18 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 19 Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of 20 v. Motion to Enforce the April 20, 21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order

22 ENFORCEMENT, et al., Hearing Date: July 13, 2020 23 Defendants. Time: 2:00 pm Hon. Jesus G. Bernal 24

26 27

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:4196

1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (213) 629-2020 Tel: (415) 773-5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 6 Fax: (415) 773-5759 Leigh Coutoumanos* 7 Michael W. Johnson* [email protected] [email protected] Timothy Ryan** 8 Dania Bardavid* [email protected] [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & 9 Jessica Blanton* GALLAGHER LLP [email protected] 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 10 Joseph Bretschneider** Washington, DC 20006 11 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 WILLKIE FARR & Fax: (202) 303-2000 12 GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue Shalini Goel Agarwal 13 New York, NY 10019 (CA Bar 254540) Tel: (212) 728-8000 [email protected] 14 Fax: (212) 728-8111 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 15 Maia Fleischman* 106 East College Avenue [email protected] Suite 1010 16 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Tallahassee, FL 32301 CENTER Tel: (850) 521-3024 17 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Fax: (850) 521-3001 18 Suite 3750 Miami, FL 33131 Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales 19 Tel: (786) 347-2056 (CA Bar 308550) Fax: (786) 237-2949 [email protected] 20 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION Christina Brandt-Young* AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 21 [email protected] 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 DISABILITY RIGHTS Los Angeles, CA 90027 22 ADVOCATES Tel: (805) 813-8896 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor Fax: (303) 872-9072 23 New York, NY 10017 24 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Veronica Salama* Fax: (212) 644-8636 [email protected] 25 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 26 P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA, 30031 Tel: (404) 221-5825 27 Fax: (404) 221-5857 28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:4197

1 Table of Contents 2

3 I. Introduction ...... 1 4 II. Defendants’ Declarations Establish Noncompliance ...... 1 5 III. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enforce Compliance ...... 3 6 IV. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need to Revise the PRR ...... 5 A. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need for Expanded 7 Testing ...... 5 8 B. An Adequately Revised PRR Would Limit Transfers ...... 6 9 C. Defendants Do Not Refute Their Dangerous Segregation 10 Practices ...... 6 11 D. An Adequate PRR Would Address Harmful Disinfectants ...... 7 12 E. Defendants Do Not Refute the Need for Other Precautions ...... 8 13 V. Defendants’ Brief Confirms Inadequate Monitoring of the PRR ...... 8 14 VI. Defendants Fail to Refute Facts Demonstrating Their Failure to 15 Adequately Implement Court-Ordered Custody Redeterminations ...... 9 16 VII. Appointment of a Special Master Is Necessary ...... 12 17 VIII. Conclusion ...... 12 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) i Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4198

1 Table of Authorities

2 Case Page(s)

3 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) ...... 4 4

5 Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013) ...... 4 6

7 Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1976); ...... 4 8

9 Hoptowit v. Ray, 10 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982) ...... 12

11 Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 12 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1994) ...... 4

13 Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 14 828 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1987) ...... 12

15 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 16 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) ...... 4, 11

17 Roman v. Wolf, No. 18 EDCV2000768TJHPVCX, 2020 WL 3481564 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) .... 4

19 Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 20 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 1996) ...... 4

21 State v. Trump, 22 263 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (D. Haw. 2017) ...... 4

23 24 25 26 27 28

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) ii Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:4199

1 I. Introduction 2 Unable to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence of noncompliance, Defendants instead 3 resort to erecting a straw man. Both their legal positions and their factual assertions 4 address a motion to hold them in contempt for their violation of the PI Order. But 5 no such motion has been made. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to 6 comply with the PI Order rather than punishing them for having failed to do so.1 7 Nor have Defendants shown compliance in any case. They do not seriously contest 8 the crucial need for the enforcement measures requested by Plaintiffs, instead 9 attempting to convince the Court that the PI Order requires lip service rather than 10 meaningful compliance. Not only have they failed to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence 11 regarding custody redeterminations, testing, transfer, segregation, disinfectants, 12 and other precautionary measures, their own declarations in fact strengthen the 13 reasons why Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. 14 II. Defendants’ Declarations Establish Noncompliance 15 Defendants urge the Court to credit Defendants’ declarations rather than 16 Plaintiffs’. Opp. at 5-6.2 But their proposed comparison of the parties’ respective 17 evidence only digs them a deeper hole. Their declarations routinely mislead the 18 Court or undermine their arguments altogether. 19 For example, Defendant Tae Johnson falsely claims that ICE has tested 20 “nearly 46% of the ICE detained population” (ECF 204-2 ¶ 21). He derives that 21 figure by comparing the total number of tests since testing began (~10,500) with 22 only the current population in detention (~23,000). But since March 1, ICE has 23

24 1 Thus, while Plaintiffs have shown by “clear and convincing evidence” that Defendants are non-compliant with the PI Order, that evidentiary standard is 25 inapposite here because Plaintiffs seek only enforcement of the PI Order—not a finding of civil contempt. 26 2 Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ evidence is inadmissible hearsay is also meritless. The Court has already rejected Defendants’ argument, ECF 132 at 5 n.4, 27 and, in any event, they have failed to comply with the Standing Order’s 28 requirements for evidentiary objections. Standing Order at 9-10; Opp. at 5.

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 1 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:4200

1 removed over 41,000 people from detention and has released another 18,000 (id. ¶¶ 2 11, 13). Thus, at least 82,000 people have been in detention since March 1, and 3 ICE has tested fewer than 13% of them.3 4 Defendants’ declarations contradict their claim that transfers are perfectly 5 acceptable under the PI Order (Opp. at 21). For example, Juan Acosta notes that 6 the El Paso Processing Center is the central intake locale for people entering 7 facilities managed by that field office (ECF 204-14 ¶ 9), such that everyone now at 8 Otero and Torrance has been transferred from EPC. There are currently 133 cases 9 at EPC, 142 at Otero, and 55 at Torrance (Alderman Decl. Ex. D). 10 A number of Defendants’ declarations point out that IHSC provides health 11 care at 20 facilities managed by ICE (e.g., ECF 204-3 ¶ 17). But Defendants’ 21 12 declarations relating to particular facilities address conditions exclusively at 13 facilities run by contractors rather than by ICE/IHSC. They also betray the fact that 14 ICE is hiding the ball when it reports cases among ICE staff at facilities—45 as of 15 June 18 in its most recent reports (Alderman Decl. Ex. E)—but ignores the larger 16 number of cases among contractor staff at the vast majority of facilities. For 17 example, at Hudson County, 103 staff members have tested positive and five have 18 died (ECF 204-13 ¶¶ 20-21). At Essex County, 98 correctional and civilian staff 19 have tested positive (ECF 204-12 ¶ 44). At Bergen County, 32 cases among staff 20 have occurred (ECF 204-5 ¶ 9(p)(4)). The 233 staff cases at just these three 21 contract facilities dwarf the 45 cases among ICE personnel. 22 Despite Defendants’ cherry-picking of facilities, the actual numbers of cases 23 even at those facilities starkly belie Defendants’ claims of compliance with the PI 24 25 3 As another example, the declaration of Liana Castano likewise seeks to mislead, 26 claiming that as of June 14 there were no people under cohort at Glades (ECF 204- 20 ¶ 9), but hiding the fact that there were 62 positive cases at that time and 111 at 27 the time the declaration was signed on July 1; and claiming that 10 of the previously-cohorted people at Krome tested positive (id. ¶ 11), but hiding the fact 28 that there were 37 positive cases when the declaration was signed (Alderman Decl. Ex. C).

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 2 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:4201

1 Order. Since June 1, the number of cases has risen from 2 to 106 at Farmville 2 (Jackson, ECF 204-8); from 44 to 133 at El Paso (Acosta, ECF 204-14); from 2 to 3 114 at Glades (Castano, ECF 204-20); and from 51 to 108 at Catahoula 4 (Rodriguez, ECF 204-21) (Alderman Decl. Ex. A, D). Cases more than doubled at 5 Irwin (Musante, ECF 204-7), Aurora (Davies, ECF 204-10), Folkston (Sterling, 6 ECF 204-11), Stewart (id.), Torrance (Acosta, ECF 204-14), Etowah (Pitman, ECF 7 204-18) and Krome (Castano, ECF 204-20), consistent with the collective jump in 8 overall cases from 1461 to 3090. Id.4 9 III. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enforce Compliance 10 Defendants incorrectly contend that the pending appeal divests this Court of 11 jurisdiction. Opp. at 16-17. They frame Plaintiffs’ requests as seeking modification 12 rather than enforcement but rely on the false premise that the PI Order did not 13 require meaningful compliance. For example, Defendants characterize Plaintiffs’ 14 requested revisions to the PRR as “new.” But the unrebutted expert evidence 15 shows that all of Plaintiffs’ requests should have been included in a revised PRR to 16 ensure that subclass members are adequately protected. Rather than contesting the 17 merits of these measures, Defendants contend that the PI Order did not require 18 them to ensure their revisions to the PRR were adequate. This Court has rejected 19 such a cavalier attitude to the PI Order and should reject it again. ECF 150 at 6. 20 Nor would Plaintiffs’ requests alter the status quo. The PI Order already 21

4 22 Moreover, those declarants who are acting or assistant field office directors have failed to stem the rise in cases at facilities they oversee. Since June 1, the cases 23 have grown 49% in the facilities overseen by the New Orleans field office 24 (Chamberlain, ECF 204-3 and 204-24); 116% at El Paso facilities (Acosta, ECF 204-14); 160% at Atlanta facilities (Musante, ECF 204-7); 416% at Miami 25 facilities (Lopez Vega, ECF 204-23); and 2080% at Washington, D.C. facilities 26 (Jackson, ECF 204-8). Notably absent from Defendants’ roster of declarants is anyone attempting to reconcile ICE’s supposed compliance with the PI Order and 27 the explosion in cases since June 1 at numerous other facilities, e.g. from 132 to 28 286 at Bluebonnet; from 1 to 250 at Eloy; from 22 to 202 at Montgomery; from 92 to 142 at Otero; and from 3 to 84 at Port Isabel (Alderman Decl. Ex. A, C, D).

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 3 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:4202

1 requires that Defendants conduct meaningful custody redeterminations, adequately 2 revise the PRR to protect subclass members, and conduct meaningful oversight, 3 and Plaintiffs merely seek enforcement of those requirements. And even if any 4 specific requests constituted modifications, they would not alter the status quo or 5 impact the questions on appeal because they are “minor adjustments that 6 effectuate[] the underlying purposes of the original [PI].” Nat. Res. Def. Council, 7 Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2001) (approving of minor 8 modifications that made more concrete the original PI’s requirements, like 9 substituting an 18-month deadline for the original requirement of “reasonably 10 expeditious” action). Moreover, because the PI Order itself expressly contemplated 11 modification, ECF 132 at 39, “part of the ‘status quo’ of this action is that the 12 court’s injunction has ongoing effect, and that effect [is] subject to change 13 depending upon subsequent developments.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. 14 Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 73 F.3d 546, 578 (5th Cir. 1996). 15 Regardless of whether Plaintiffs’ requests are framed as enforcement, 16 clarification, or modification5 of the PI Order, this Court retains jurisdiction. A 17 district court retains jurisdiction to issue enforcement orders that “protect 18 plaintiffs’ rights in direct response to defendants’ . . . non-compliance” with an 19 earlier injunction pending an appeal. Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 955, 959 n.6 20 (9th Cir. 2013). That is true even where a district court amends a preliminary 21 injunction in a way that “broaden[s] the scope of injunctive relief,” beyond the 22 order on appeal, “to clarify its original injunction and to supervise compliance.” 23 Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 n.14 (9th Cir. 1994).6 24 5 Defendants wrongly contend that Plaintiffs have waived any request for 25 modification, ECF 204 at 16, but Plaintiffs’ moving brief specifically addresses modification in the alternative to enforcement. ECF 172-1 at 4. 26 6 See also e.g., A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 27 2002); Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d at 1166; Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1976); Roman v. Wolf, No. 28 EDCV2000768TJHPVCX, 2020 WL 3481564, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2020); State v. Trump, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1049, 1056 (D. Haw. 2017).

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 4 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:4203

1 IV. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need to Revise the PRR 2 Defendants do not rebut Plaintiffs’ significant expert evidence 3 demonstrating that an adequately revised PRR would include the measures 4 outlined in Plaintiffs’ motion. Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ requests 5 are “new requests.” Defendants ignore not only the crucial need for additional 6 precautions but also this Court’s command that Defendants revise the PRR to 7 create “safe” detention conditions to protect subclass members and “reduce their 8 risk of COVID-19 infection.” ECF 132 at 37-38. 9 A. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need for Expanded Testing 10 Defendants proffer no evidence to refute Plaintiffs’ experts’ conclusions that 11 expanded testing is crucial for protecting the subclass. Nor could they. Instead, 12 Defendants’ declarations evince how they continue to slow-walk expanding testing 13 while fully aware of the need for more testing. Indeed, Defendants have launched 14 limited “pilot efforts” at a handful of facilities to expand testing, but they fail to 15 reasonably justify why these efforts are restricted to so few facilities. Opp. at 21. 16 Likewise, Defendants state that the 20 IHSC facilities are now testing people at 17 intake. Opp. at 20. But they ignore the fact that the vast majority of facilities are 18 not run by IHSC, and they fail to justify why testing at intake is not mandated at 19 non-IHSC facilities. Defendants’ failure to expand testing ignores the rapidly 20 increasing rate of infection, the ease of transmission among even asymptomatic 21 individuals, the documented harm that Defendants’ limited testing has caused,7 the 22 imminence of a “second wave” of infections,8 and the CDC’s updated guidelines 23 for Correctional Facilities—which urges a broader testing strategy, including re- 24 testing of detained individuals every 3 to 7 days.9 25 7 See, e.g., Emily Kassie and Barbara Marcolini, How ICE Exported the 26 Coronavirus, THE MARSHALL PROJECT (July 10, 2020). https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/07/10/how-ice-exported-the-coronavirus 27 8 Gonsalves Dec. ¶ 7. 28 9 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction- detention/testing.html

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 5 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:4204

1 B. An Adequately Revised PRR Would Limit Transfers 2 Defendants fail to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence showing that an adequately 3 revised PRR would substantially curtail transfers and that Defendants’ transfer 4 practices continue to place subclass members at substantial risk. Defendants 5 contend that their “COVID-19 Checklist for All ICE ERO Transfers, Removals 6 and Release” provides sufficient protection.10 But even assuming arguendo that the 7 Checklist were comprehensive, and it is not,11 the evidence shows—and 8 Defendants’ declarations corroborate—that the Checklist and Defendants’ other 9 transfer policies are not preventing the spread of the virus and that Defendants are 10 not actually following the Checklist.12 For example, Scot Jackson notes that 74 11 people were transferred into Farmville from facilities in Arizona and Florida on 12 June 2 (ECF 204-8 ¶ 12). There were 2 positive cases at Farmville at that time; 13 there are now 106 (Alderman Decl. Ex. D). The ballooning numbers at Farmville 14 exemplify increasing infection rates system-wide that stem directly from 15 Defendants’ transfer practices and overall failure to revise the PRR to protect 16 subclass members. 17 C. Defendants Do Not Refute Their Dangerous Segregation Practices 18 Defendants do not contest Plaintiffs’ assertion that they are imposing 19 conditions equivalent to punitive solitary confinement for purposes of medical 20 isolation, quarantine, or other infection control, placing class members at risk of 21 profound harm to their mental health. Rather, claiming helplessness (“Facilities

22 10 Notably, Defendants have not produced this document notwithstanding its 23 responsiveness to Plaintiffs’ request, and refused to produce the document prior to today’s deadline, finally filing it only this morning after multiple requests. ECF 24 205. 25 11 See Venters Fourth Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. 12 See, e.g., Emily Kassie and Barbara Marcolini, How ICE Exported the 26 Coronavirus, THE MARSHALL PROJECT (July 10, 2020). https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/07/10/how-ice-exported-the-coronavirus; 27 Ernesto Decl. At ¶¶ 6-11 (detained individual who was transferred while sick and 28 without testing or appropriate social distancing).

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 6 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:4205

1 have been forced to utilize all their available housing space . . . ,” Opp. at 21), they 2 fully admit that “[t]he use of segregated housing units may be necessary at times.” 3 Id.13 Defendants’ argument that they are “forced” to impose conditions equivalent 4 to solitary confinement seeks to evade their obligation to ensure that conditions in 5 their facilities are adequate and medically appropriate. To be sure, Defendants have 6 numerous options to avoid imposing solitary confinement as a means of medical 7 isolation, such as releasing people or mandating that facilities increase the number 8 of medical isolation rooms. Defendants proffer no evidence whatsoever showing 9 that they have attempted to utilize such measures. 10 Nor do Defendants refute the dangerous consequences of imposing solitary 11 confinement as a means of infection control. They offer no evidence showing that 12 they disagree that there are material distinctions between the improper and harmful 13 use of solitary confinement and the ethical use of medical isolation and 14 quarantine.14 To the contrary, Defendants’ evidence shows that they are aware of 15 these dangers but simply refuse to meaningfully address them. Rivera ¶¶ 23-27, 16 ECF 204-17. And critically, Defendants concede an adequately revised PRR would 17 have addressed this issue by admitting that future revisions may address “updates 18 in this area.” Opp. at 22. 19 D. An Adequate PRR Would Address Harmful Disinfectants 20 Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that harmful disinfectants are being 21 used in detention facilities. Defendants do not dispute this contention, and in fact 22 acknowledge that several lawsuits have been brought based on this precise issue. 23

24 13 ICE terms units outside of general population “Administrative Segregation” and “Disciplinary Segregation.” In practice, both resemble solitary confinement. See, 25 e.g., Disability Rights Cal., There is No Safety Here, at 2 (Mar. 2019), https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file- 26 attachments/DRC_REPORT_ADELANTO- IMMIG_DETENTION_MARCH2019.pdf. 27 14 David H. Cloud et al., Medical Isolation and Solitary Confinement: Balancing 28 Health and Humanity in US Jails and Prisons During COVID-19, J. GEN. INTERN. MED. 2020 at 1, Jul 6; Gonsalves ¶ 4.

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 7 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:4206

1 Opp. at 22. Instead, Defendants recycle their flawed argument that the use of 2 harmful disinfectants is unrelated to the PI Order. Opp. at 22. Not so. As explained 3 above, the PI Order required Defendants to develop a comprehensive PPR that 4 provides for “the safe detention of at risk detainees” (ECF 132 at 37). Plaintiffs 5 presented substantial evidence showing that an adequately revised PRR would 6 include safeguards regarding disinfectants. 7 E. Defendants Do Not Refute the Need for Other Precautions 8 Plaintiffs’ experts identified numerous precautionary measures that an 9 adequately revised PRR must address. See, e.g., Vassallo, ECF 189 ¶¶ 22-34 (the 10 PRR “altogether fails to provide crucial guidance regarding the treatment and care 11 of people with COVID”); Venters, ECF 172-10 ¶ 7 (identifying need for, inter 12 alia, increased monitoring of subclass members, care planning, and increased staff 13 training). Rather than addressing these concerns, Defendants dismiss Plaintiffs’ 14 evidence regarding the revised PRR’s deficiencies as a “wish list.” However, 15 Defendants completely ignore the fact that the precautionary measures identified 16 by Plaintiffs’ experts are the “best practices” that have been identified by medical 17 professionals “through this pandemic” and constitute the “minimum acceptable 18 detention conditions.” See, e.g., Venters, ECF 172-10 ¶ 47. Moreover, Defendants 19 suggest that the PRR is not the proper place for these precautionary measures. 20 Johnson, ECF 204-2 ¶ 35. This argument is meritless because the PI Order 21 specifically mandates revisions to the PRR to protect medically vulnerable people 22 and because the evidence shows the need for centralized guidance to protect the 23 subclass. See Venters, Fourth Supp. Dec. ¶¶ 4-6. 24 V. Defendants’ Brief Confirms Inadequate Monitoring of the PRR 25 Defendants admit that their bare-bones survey questionnaires – the only 26 measure they have taken to monitor the PRR – “do not contain quality of medical 27 care categories” or other essential questions, and further admit that the people 28 reviewing these questionnaires – DSMs and DSCOs – are not qualified to

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 8 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:4207

1 “evaluate medical care process, effectiveness of care or patient outcome.” Johnson, 2 ECF 204-2 ¶ 36.15 Indeed, topics that are covered by the PRR (albeit inadequately) 3 – such as use of PPE and medical isolation16 – are virtually ignored in the 4 questionnaire, which simply asks if operational and isolation procedures are in 5 place, without eliciting information as to the substance of those procedures. 6 Defendants further admit that they have not issued new protocols to follow 7 up on questionnaires that show deficiencies.17 Rather, Defendants rely on the same 8 “long-standing policies and procedures”18 that have resulted in a long history of 9 “monitoring and oversight failures.” ECF 132 at 30. For example, although the 10 revised PRR states that in facilities that operate under QASPs, deficiencies may 11 result in financial penalties (ECF 173 at 110), this is meaningless because many 12 facilities do not operate under QASPs, and because Defendants historically have 13 virtually never issued financial penalties in response to violations.19 14 VI. Defendants Fail to Refute Facts Demonstrating Their Failure to Adequately Implement Court-Ordered Custody Redeterminations 15 Notably absent from Defendants’ Opposition are facts refuting their 16 admitted failure to maintain centralized mechanisms to oversee and ensure 17 compliant custody redeterminations. Despite this Court requiring a centralized 18 19 20 15 Defendants contend that Field Medical Coordinators generally work with 21 detention staff and monitor quality of care (id.), but they have not produced a single document showing monitoring by these coordinators (or anyone else) of 22 COVID-19 medical practices and policies in detention facilities, notwithstanding this Court’s order requiring them to do so. ECF 150 at 10. 23 16 ECF 173 at 124-25. 17 For example, Defendants have failed to follow up on questionnaire responses 24 from late April that, instead of providing the requested information, responded 25 with legalese answers. Opp. at 15-16. 18 Johnson, ECF 204-2 ¶ 37. 26 19 Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., OIG-19-18: ICE Does Not Fully Use Contracting Tools to Hold Detention Facility Contractors 27 Accountable for Failing to Meet Performance Standards, at 7-8 (Jan. 29, 2019), 28 https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-02/OIG-19-18-Jan19.pdf

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 9 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:4208

1 process for review,20 Defendants gloss over the extreme variances in custody 2 redeterminations.21 They offer declarations decrying the purported “threat” posed 3 by all persons with Risk Factors without showing any objective assessment of such 4 threats or consideration of release as a significant discretionary factor as required 5 by the PI Order and by ICE policy. Defendants thus continue to refuse to take the 6 PI Order’s custody redetermination process seriously.22 7 Additionally, Defendants’ blanket refusal to even consider release for 8 persons subject to mandatory detention, without providing binding authority for 9 such a refusal, directly contradicts the PI Order’s instruction that its remedial 10 provisions apply equally to all subclass members regardless of the statutory basis 11 for their detention. See, e.g., ECF 132 at 10, 38; ECF 150 at 3. 12 Defendants also fail to justify their unnecessarily restricted definition of the 13 Risk Factor of “severe psychiatric illness.” ECF 132 at 21 n.20 and 22 n.21. 14 Defendants neither explain their rationale nor provide any clinical basis for 15 adopting the Franco definition. Whereas Franco concerned competency to 16 20 ECF 132 at 38-39. This Court also reiterated how Defendants agreed to external 17 requests for review of individual subclass members, including a process whereby “Class Counsel provide the names of . . . detained individuals with risk factors who 18 have not yet been identified by the facilities or by ICE.” ECF 150 at 8 n. 3. 21 Opp. at 7-8. Despite recognizing that the PI Order calls for “timely” custody 19 redeterminations, Defendants wrongly contend that some field offices’ failure to respond at all to requests is not evidence of a violation. Id. at 8. 20 22 Defendants also erroneously contend that ICE is not required to identify subclass members released solely based on the Fraihat PI Order. Opp. at 8. The PI Order 21 itself is an independent mechanism of release, and the subsequent May 15 order explicitly requires Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs documents “disclosing 22 which Subclass Members have been released in the United States pursuant to custody determinations.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added). To the extent Defendants are 23 unable to identify which subclass members were released solely as a result of Fraihat custody redeterminations (as opposed to bond or parole), this is evidence 24 of Defendants’ inadequate oversight. Finally, Defendants have failed to persuasively justify their failure to include Plaintiffs Baca-Hernandez, Hernandez, 25 and Mencias Soto from their records of subclass members. Although Defendants contend plaintiffs Baca-Hernandez and Hernandez were excluded due to the 26 protective order, they fail to reconcile this with the fact that they have identified thousands of other class members. And while Defendants contend that plaintiff 27 Mencias Soto was determined to not have any Risk Factors, they do not contest that he was hospitalized while under their custody due to cardiovascular and 28 respiratory distress. Mencias Soto, ECF 187 ¶¶ 4-5.

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 10 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:4209

1 participate in immigration proceedings, the mental health disabilities relevant here 2 are those that affect ability to participate in medical treatment, specifically those 3 “that would impair the ability to engage in COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis and 4 treatment efforts.” Venters, ECF 172-10 ¶ 43; Haney, ECF 172-8 ¶ 7. Expert 5 testimony establishes that Defendants are excluding many diagnoses, including, 6 but not limited to, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, 7 anxiety disorders, dementia, and related subclinical diagnoses. Venters, ECF 172- 8 10 ¶ 43; Haney, ECF 172-8 ¶ 8; Vassallo, ECF 189 ¶ 18. 9 Defendants also misconstrue Plaintiffs’ explicit request for a presumption of 10 release as “fundamentally alter[ing] the status quo.” Opp. at 18. Not so. The 11 Court’s PI Order and ICE policy make clear that release should be a significant 12 factor,23 and this Court can clarify that the PI Order mandated this presumption. 13 See Meinhold, 34 F.3d at 1480 n.14. Further, individuals in ICE custody are in civil 14 detention, the purpose of which is merely to assure that they are present for 15 proceedings. There are numerous other ways of accomplishing this.24 ICE’s data 16 demonstrates that only 15 percent of people detained in detention centers are 17 classified as a high security threat, and that the vast majority of those people who 18 are released show up for removal proceedings.25 Release would thus be consistent 19 with agency practice of releasing detainees for humanitarian reasons.26 And given 20 evidence of increased infections and Defendants’ failure to implement custody 21 redeterminations, mandating a presumption of release would “effectuate[] the 22 underlying purposes of the original [PI].” Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d at 1167. 23 24 25 23 See ECF 121-4, Defendants’ April 4, 2020 COVID 19 Detained Docket Review 26 Guidance at 2, incorporated by the Court’s Order, ECF 132 at 38. 24 ICE has identified home confinement where released persons check in 27 telephonically on a periodic basis or wear ankle monitors as options. See Jordan, ECF 113-1, Ex. A. 28 25 See id., Exs. B and C. 26 See, e.g., Lorenzen-Strait (ECF 81-14); Sweeney (ECF 81-4).

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 11 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:4210

1 VII. Appointment of a Special Master Is Necessary 2 Defendants fail to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrating the need for a 3 Special Master. Opp. at 23. First, Defendants concede the factual complexity of 4 this case due to “the number of detention facilities . . . and given the number of 5 class members who vary in medical issues and disabilities.” Id. at 23-24.Courts 6 have held that Special Masters are appropriate in other conditions-of-confinements 7 cases even less complex than this one. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1263 8 (9th Cir. 1982). Second, Defendants’ assertion that there exists no history of 9 noncompliance is contradicted by Plaintiffs’ evidence, and even “the prospect of 10 noncompliance is an ‘exceptional condition’ that justifies” appointment of a 11 Special Master. See Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 12 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1987). The recent decision by DHS’s OIG to forgo in- 13 person inspections27—while also announcing new findings of non-compliant 14 detention conditions28 —further evinces the need for a Special Master. Finally, a 15 Special Master will not materially change the status quo because the PI Order 16 already mandates oversight. 17 VIII. Conclusion 18 For these reasons and those in their opening brief, Plaintiffs respectfully request 19 the Court grant the Motion to Enforce. 20 21 22 23

24 27 Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, A Government Watchdog Group Will No Longer Conduct Onsite Inspections Of Immigration Facilities Because Of The 25 Coronavirus, Buzzfeed News (July 2, 2020), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/an-government-watchdog- 26 group-will-no-longer-conduct-onsite. 27 28 Office of Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., OIG-20-45, Capping Report: Observations of Unannounced Inspections of ICE Facilities in 2019 (July 28 1, 2020), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-07/OIG-20-45- Jul20.pdf.

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 12 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:4211

1 DATED: July 13, 2020 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 /s/ Jared Davidson______/s/ William F. Alderman__ Jared Davidson William F. Alderman 5 Lisa Graybill Mark Mermelstein 6 Shalini Goel Agarwal Jake Routhier Maia Fleischman ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 7 Veronica Salama SUTCLIFFE LLP 8 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 9 /s/ Michael W. Johnson____ 10 /s/ Timothy P. Fox______Michael W. Johnson 11 Timothy P. Fox Dania Bardavid Elizabeth Jordan Leigh Coutoumanos 12 Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales Jessica Blanton 13 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND Joseph Bretschneider ENFORCEMENT CENTER Timothy Ryan 14 WILLKIE FARR & 15 GALLAGHER LLP /s/ Stuart Seaborn______16 Stuart Seaborn 17 Christina Brandt-Young Melissa Riess 18 DISABILITY RIGHTS 19 ADVOCATES 20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 13 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:4212

1 Timothy P. Fox (CA Bar 157750) ox creeclaw. org 2 liza eth Jordan* [email protected] 3 Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales (CA Bar 308550) 4 pgonzalez@greeclaworg CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND 5 ENFORCEMENT CENTER 1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400 6 Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 757-7901 7 Fax: (303) 872-9072 8 Lisa Graybill* Stuart Seaborn (CA Bar 198590) lisa.g,[email protected] sseaborn@draleg,al.org 9 Jared. Davidson* Melissa Riess (CA Bar 295959) [email protected] [email protected]_ 10 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER DISABILITY RIGI-ffS 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 ADVOCATES 11 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Tel: (504) 486-8982 Berkeley, California 94704 12 Fax: (504) 486-8947 Tel: (510) 665-8644 Fax: (510) 665-8511 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Continued on next page) 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 EASTERN DIVISION — RIVERSIDE 17 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 18 al., DECLARATION OF WILLIAM F. 19 Plaintiffs, ALDERMAN IN SUPPORT OF 20 v. PLAINTIFFS' REPLY ON MOTION 21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS TO ENFORCE ENFORCEMENT, et al., 22 Hearing Date: July 17, 2020 Defendants. Time: 2:00 p.m. 23 Hon. Jesus G. Bernal- 24 25 26 27 28

Fraihat, et al. v. ICE, et al, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB (SHKx) 4162-1008_69wiaration of William F. Alderman In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Enforce Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:4213

1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) walderman@orrick. corn [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HEWMGTON 111 & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Tel: (213) 629-2020 5 Telephone: +1 415 773 5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 6 Leigh Coutoumanos** Michael W. Johnson* * koutoumanos @winkle. corn 7 [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & Dania Bardavid** GALLAGHER LLP 8 dbardavid@w illkie. corn 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 Jessica Blanton** Washington, DC 20006 9 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 Joseph Bretschneider** Fax: (202) 303-2000 10 ibrets chneiderAw illkie. corn WILLKIE FAI" & Shalini Goel Agarwal 11 GALLAGHER LLP (CA Bar 254540 787 Seventh Avenue shalini.svarwal lcenter. org 12 New York, NY 10019 SOUTI-ffiRN P RTY LAW Tel: (212) 728-8000 CENTER 13 Fax: (212) 728-8111 106 East College Avenue Suite 1010 14 Maia Fleischman* Tallahassee, FL 32301 maiajleischman plcenter.orr. Tel: (850) 521-3024 15 SOUTHERN PO ERTY LAW CENTER Fax: (850) 521-3001 2 South Biscayne Boulevard 16 Suite 3750 Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales Miami, FL 33131 (CA Bar 308550) 17 Tel: 786) 347-2056 pgonzalez@creeclaw. org Fax: (786) 237-2949 -CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND 18 ENFORCEMENT CENTER Christina Brandt-Young* 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 19 [email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90027 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES Tel: (805) 813-8896 20 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor Fax: (303) 872-9072 New York, NY 10017 21 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 22 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 24 **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming 25 26 27 28 4162-1008-6949.1 Fraihat, et al. v. ICE, et al, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB (SHKx) Declaration of William F. Alderman In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Enforce Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:4214

1 I, William F. Alderman, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a senior counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and one of 3 the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs in this action. I make this declaration in 4 support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction 5 Order. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and I could 6 and would testify competently to those facts if called as a witness. 7 2. Beginning on April 10, 2020, I have visited each day (other than on 8 weekends when no new data is posted) the "Coronavirus" page on the website 9 maintained by defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at 10 https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (the "ICE website"). Attached as Exhibit A hereto 11 is a true and correct copy of a daily report posted on the ICE website on June 1, 12 2020 showing, among other things, the number of COVID-19 positive cases at 13 various facilities for people currently in ICE custody as of May 31, 2020. 14 3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of a daily 15 report posted on the ICE website on June 15, 2020 showing, among other things, 16 the number of COVID-19 positive cases at various facilities for people currently in 17 ICE custody as of June 14, 2020. 18 4. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of a daily 19 report posted on the ICE website on July 1, 2020 showing, among other things, the 20 number of COVID-19 positive cases at various facilities for people currently in ICE 21 custody as of June 30, 2020. 22 5. Attached as Exhibit D hereto is a true and correct copy of a daily 23 report posted on the ICE website on July 10, 2020 showing, among other things, the 24 number of COVID-19 positive cases at various facilities for people currently in ICE 25 custody as of July 9, 2020. 26 6. Attached as Exhibit E hereto is a true and correct copy of a daily report 27 posted on the ICE website on July 10, 2020 showing, among other things, the 28 number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 among ICE employees at various 4162-1008-6949.1 Fraihat, et al. v. ICE, et al, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB (SHKx) Declaration of William F. Alderman In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Enforce Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:4215

1 facilities as of June 18, 2020. 2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the 3 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Santa Cruz, 4 California on July 13, 2020. 5 6 7 /s/ William F. Alderman 8 William F. Alderman 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4162-1008-6949.1 2 Fraihat, et at v. ICE, et al, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB (SHKx) Declaration of William F. Alderman In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Enforce Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:4216

EXHIBIT A Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:4217

Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security ICE

Report Crimes: Email or Cali 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

Search ICE.gov Os

NOTICE

Click here for the latest ICE guidance on COVID-19

ICE Guidance on COVID-19

Overview & Employee ICE Detainee Judicial Previous Confirmed Releases Statements FAQs Cases Statistics

Page information is recorded from a live database; data may change as the agency receives updated case information.

DETAINED COVID-19 POSITIVE CASES DETAINEES POPULATION 1 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY 2 TESTED

AS OF 05/23/2020 UNDER ISOLATION OR MONITORING AS OF AS OF 05/31/2020 05/31/2020 25,911 2,781 754

COVID-19 ICE Detainee Statistics by Facility AS OF 05/31/2020

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Atlanta Field Office Folkston ICE Processing Center 3 0 3 (D. Ray James) Irwin County Detention Center 7 0 7 Stewart Detention Center 23 1 25 Boston Field Office

Bristol County Detention Center 1 1

Franklin County House of Corrections 2 0 2

Strafford County Corrections 2 2 Wyatt Detention Center 2 0 2 Buffalo Field Office

Buffalo (Batavia) Service Processing 0 0 49 Center Chicago Field Office Lincoln County Detention Center 1 0 1 Pulaski County Detention Center 20 0 29

Dallas Field Office Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:4218

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Bluebonnet Detention Facility 122 0 132

Johnson County Law Enforcement 1 0 1 Center

Prairieland Detention Facility 18 0 43

Rolling Plains Detention Center 29 0 41

Denver Field Office Denver Contract Detention Facility 4 0 5 Detroit Field Office

Calhoun County Correctional Center 1 0 2

Morrow County Correctional Facility 26 0 48

Saint Clair County Jail 5 0 10

El Paso Field Office El Paso Service Processing Center 38 0 44

Otero County Processing Center 27 0 92 Torrance County Detention Center 17 0 17

Houston Field Office Houston Contract Detention Facility 42 0 78

IAH Polk Adult Detention Facility 0 0 16

Joe Corley Detention Center 26 0 41 Montgomery Processing Center 19 0 22 (Houston)

Los Angeles Field Office Adelanto ICE Processing Center 2 0 2 LA Staging 0 0 1 Miami Field Office

Broward Transitional Center 20 0 20 Glades County Detention Center 2 0 2

Krome North Service Processing 2 0 15 Center Newark Field Office

Elizabeth Detention Center 0 0 18 Essex County Jail 7 0 8 New Orleans Field Office

Adams County Correctional Center 3 0 17

Alexandria Staging Facility 55 0 55

Catahoula Correctional Center 33 0 51 Etowah County Jail 1 0 1 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - Jena 0 0 11 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - 011a 3 0 3

Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center 2 0 30

Richwood Correctional Center 1 0 65 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:4219

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 River Correctional Center 1 0 2

Winn Correctional Center 68 0 99 New York City Field Office

Bergen County Jail 0 0 2 Hudson County Jail 5 0 14 Philadelphia Field Office

Pike County Correctional Facility 14 0 22 York County Prison 0 0 1 Phoenix Field Office

Eloy Federal Contract Facility 1 0 1 Florence Detention Center 4 0 14

La Palma Correctional Facility 14 0 76 Salt Lake City Field Office

Nevada Southern Detention Center 1 0 1 San Antonio Field Office Port Isabel Detention Center 2 0 3 South Texas ICE Processing Center 29 0 32 (Pearsall)

Webb County Detention Center (CCA) 0 0 1 San Diego Field Office

Imperial Regional Detention Facility 2 0 2 Otay Mesa Detention Center (San 21 1 160 Diego CDF)

San Luis 2 0 2 San Luis Detention Center 1 0 1 Seattle Field Office Tacoma ICE Processing Center 1 0 1 (Northwest Detention Center)

St. Paul Field Office

Polk County Jail 9 0 10

Washington D.C. Field Office

Caroline Detention Facility 0 0 3 immigration Centers of America - 2 0 2 Farmville

TOTAL 754 2 1,461

Updated 06/01/2020 10:46am

1 ICE's FY 2019 Average Daily Population was 50,165.

2 "Currently under isolation or monitoring" includes detainees who tested positive for COVID-19 and are currently in ICE custody under isolation or monitoring. This number excludes detainees who previously tested positive for COVID-19 and were either returned to the general population after a discontinuation of medical monitoring/isolation or are no longer in ICE custody. Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:4220

3 "Detainee deaths" includes detainees who have died after testing positive for COVID-19 while in ICE custody; COVID-19 may not be the official cause of death.

4 "Total confirmed COVID-19 cases" is the cumulative total of detainees who have tested positive for COVID-19 while in ICE custody since testing began in February 2020. Some detainees may no longer be in ICE custody or may have since tested negative for the virus.

I Return to top

Last Reviewed/Updated: 06/01/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:4221

EXHIBIT B Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:4222

In Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security k I ICE

Report Crimes: Email or Call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

Search ICE.gov Q

NOTICE

Click here for the latest ICE guidance on COVID-19

ICE Guidance on COVID-19

Employee Overview & ICE Detainee Judicial Previous FAQs Confirmed Statistics Releases Statements Cases

Page information is recorded from a live database; data may change as the agency receives updated case information.

DETAINED COVID-19 POSITIVE CASES DETAINEES POPULATION 1 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY 2 TESTED

AS OF 06/06/2020 UNDER ISOLATION OR MONITORING AS OF AS OF 06/05/2020 06/14/2020 24,713 5,096 929

COVID-19 ICE Detainee Statistics by Facility AS OF 06/14/2020

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Atlanta Field Office

Folkston ICE Processing Center 4 0 4 (D. Ray James)

Irwin County Detention Center 7 0 8

Stewart Detention Center 26 1 31

Boston Field Office

Bristol County Detention Center 1 0 1 Franklin County House of Corrections 3 0 3

Strafford County Corrections 2 0 2

Wyatt Detention Center 1 0 2 Buffalo Field Office

Buffalo (Batavia) Service Processing 0 0 49 Center Chicago Field Office Lincoln County Detention Center 1 0 1

Pulaski County Detention Center 33 0 45 Dallas Field Office Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:4223

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Bluebonnet Detention Facility 129 0 164 Johnson County Law Enforcement 1 0 1 Center

Prairieland Detention Facility 16 0 43

Rolling Plains Detention Center 29 0 41

Denver Field Office

Aurora Contract Detention Facility 9 0 12 Detroit Field Office

Calhoun County Correctional Center 3 0 5 Morrow County Correctional Facility 26 0 48 Saint Clair County Jail 5 0 10

El Paso Field Office

El Paso Service Processing Center 80 0 88 Otero County Processing Center 11 0 99 Torrance County Detention Center 1 0 19

Houston Field Office

Houston Contract Detention Facility 21 0 103 IAN Polk Adult Detention Facility 0 0 16

Joe Corley Detention Center 3 0 42 Montgomery Processing Center 70 0 110 (Houston)

Los Angeles Field Office

Adelanto ICE Processing Center 3 0 3

Miami Field Office Broward Transitional Center 22 0 24 Glades County Detention Center 61 0 63 Krome North Service Processing 8 0 24 Center

Newark Field Office Elizabeth Detention Center 0 0 18

Essex County Jail 7 0 8

New Orleans Field Office Adams County Correctional Center 17 0 31 Alexandria Staging Facility 12 0 59 Catahoula Correctional Center 33 0 53

Etowah County Jail 0 0 1

LaSalle ICE Processing Center - Jena 3 0 14

LaSalle ICE Processing Center - 011a 6 0 6 Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center 0 0 30

Richwood Correctional Center 0 0 65

River Correctional Center 1 0 2 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:4224

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Winn Correctional Center 23 0 116

New York City Field Office

Bergen County Jail 0 0 2

Hudson County Jail 5 0 14 Philadelphia Field Office

Pike County Correctional Facility 8 0 22 York County Prison 0 0 1 Phoenix Field Office

CCA Florence Correctional Center 1 0 1 Eloy Federal Contract Facility 122 0 123

Florence Detention Center 13 0 28 La Palma Correctional Facility 17 0 81

Salt Lake City Field Office Nevada Southern Detention Center 1 0 1

San Antonio Field Office

El Valle Detention Facility 1 0 1

Port Isabel Detention Center 33 0 36

South Texas ICE Processing Center 20 0 47 (Pearsall) Webb County Detention Center (CCA) 0 0 1

San Diego Field Office Imperial Regional Detention Facility 1 0 2

Otay Mesa Detention Center (San 7 1 164 Diego CDF) San Luis Regional Detention Center 5 0 5

Seattle Field Office Tacoma ICE Processing Center 3 0 4 (Northwest Detention Center)

St. Paul Field Office Polk County Jail 10 0 11

Washington D.C. Field Office Caroline Detention Facility 0 0 3

Immigration Centers of America - 3 0 3 Farmville TOTAL 929 2 2,016

Updated 06/15/2020 12:40pm

I ICE's FY 2019 Average Daily Population was 50,165.

3 "Detainee deaths" includes detainees who have died after testing positive for COVID-19 while in ICE custody; COVID-19 may not be the official cause of death.

I Return to top

Last Reviewed/Updated: 06/15/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:4226

EXHIBIT C 7/1/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on COVID-19Filed 07/13/20 I ICE Page 16 of 26 Page ID Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security #:4227 ICE kte

port Crimes: Email or Call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

NOTICE

Click here for the latest ICE guidance on COVID-19

ICE Guidance on COVID-19

Employee Overview & ICE Detainee Judicial Previous FAQs Confirmed Statements Cases Statistics Releases

Page information is recorded from a live database; data may change as the agency receives updated case information.

DETAINED COVID-19 POSITIVE CASES DETAINEES POPULATION 1 CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY 2 TESTED

AS OF 06/24/2020 UNDER ISOLATION OR MONITORING AS OF AS OF 06/26/2020 06/30/2020 23,429 10,513 752

COVID-19 ICE Detainee Statistics by Facility AS OF 06/30/2020

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody!AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Atlanta Field Office Charleston County Detention Center 2 0 2 Folkston ICE Processing Center 5 0 5 (D. Ray James) Irwin County Detention Center 12 0 14 Stewart Detention Center 24 55 Boston Field Office Bristol County Detention Center 0 0 1 Franklin County House of Corrections 5 0 6 Strafford County Corrections 2 0 2 Wyatt Detention Center 0 0 2 Buffalo Field Office Buffalo (Batavia) Service Processing 0 0 49 Center /---'`Chicago Field Office Lincoln County Detention Center 0 0 1 Pulaski County Detention Center 0 0 45 Dallas Field Office

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 1/4 7/1/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on COVID-19Filed 07/13/20 I ICE Page 17 of 26 Page ID Confirmed #:4228 cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Bluebonnet Detention Facility 145 0 280 Johnson County Law Enforcement 1 0 1 Center Moore Detention Center 12 0 12 Prairieland Detention Facility 9 0 52 Rolling Plains Detention Center 1 0 42 Denver Field Office Aurora Contract Detention Facility 9 0 16 Detroit Field Office Calhoun County Correctional Center 3 0 6 Morrow County Correctional Facility 0 0 48 Saint Clair County Jail 3 0 10 El Paso Field Office El Paso Service Processing Center 67 0 119 Otero County Processing Center 27 0 143 Torrance County Detention Center 16 0 42 Houston Field Office Houston Contract Detention Facility 1 0 105 IAN Polk Adult Detention Facility 0 0 16 Joe Corley Detention Center 1 0 42 Montgomery Processing Center 64 0 184 (Houston) Los Angeles Field Office Adelanto ICE Processing Center 8 0 10 Miami Field Office Broward Transitional Center 7 0 26 Glades County Detention Center 48 0 111 Krome North Service Processing 3 0 37 Center Wakulla County Jail 1 0 1 Newark Field Office Elizabeth Detention Center 0 0 18 Essex County Jail 6 0 8 New Orleans Field Office Adams County Correctional Center 0 0 35 Alexandria Staging Facility 18 0 76 Catahoula Correctional Center 25 0 77 "----'ctowah County Jail 0 0 1 Jackson Parish Correctional 2 0 2 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - Jena 1 0 15 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - 011a 6 0 12

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 2/4 7/1/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on COVID-19Filed 07/13/20 I ICE Page 18 of 26 Page ID Confirmed #:4229 cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4

Prairie ICE Processing Center 0 0 30 Richwood Correctional Center 0 0 65 River Correctional Center 0 0 2 South Louisiana Correctional Center 2 0 2 Winn Correctional Center 5 0 121 New York City Field Office Bergen County Jail 0 0 2 Hudson County Jail 5 0 14 Philadelphia Field Office Pike County Correctional Facility 0 0 22 York County Prison 0 0 1 Phoenix Field Office CCA Florence Correctional Center 9 0 11 Eloy Federal Contract Facility 88 0 222 Florence Detention Center 1 0 33 La Palma Correctional Facility 4 0 92 Salt Lake City Field Office Nevada Southern Detention Center 3 0 3 Antonio Field Office El Valle Detention Facility 1 0 1 Karnes County Residential Center 11 0 11 Port Isabel Detention Center 23 0 78 South Texas ICE Processing Center 4 0 51 (Pearsall) Webb County Detention Center (CCA) 5 0 6 San Diego Field Office Imperial Regional Detention Facility 0 0 2 Otay Mesa Detention Center (San 3 1 167 Diego CDF) San Luis Regional Detention Center 3 0 7 Seattle Field Office Tacoma ICE Processing Center 1 0 3 (Northwest Detention Center) St. Paul Field Office Polk County Jail 1 0 11 Washington D.C. Field Office Caroline Detention Facility 0 0 3 /-- "N mmigration Centers of America - 49 0 53 Farmville TOTAL 7,32 2 2,742

Updated 07/01/2020 8:00am

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 3/4 7/1/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on COVID-19Filed 07/13/20 I ICE Page 19 of 26 Page ID 1 ICE's FY 2019 Average Daily Population was 50,165. #:4230

2 "Currently under isolation or monitoring" includes detainees who tested positive for COVID-19 and are currently in ICE custody under isolation or monitoring. This number excludes detainees who previously "--"*.sted positive for COVID-19 and were either returned to the general population after a discontinuation of :dice, monitoring/isolation or are no longer in ICE custody.

3 "Detainee deaths" includes detainees who have died after testing positive for COVID-19 while in ICE custody; COVID-19 may not be the official cause of death.

I Return to top

Last Reviewed/Updated: 07/01/2020

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 4/4 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:4231

EXHIBIT D 7/10/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on FiledCOVID-19 07/13/20 I ICE Page 21 of 26 Page ID Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security #:4232 E

.port Crimes: Email or Call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

NOTICE

Click here for the latest ICE guidance on COVID-19

ICE Guidance on COVID-19

Employee Overview & ICE Detainee Judicial Previous Confirmed Statements FAQs Cases Statistics Releases

Page information is recorded from a live database; data may change as the agency receives updated case information.

DETAINED COVID-19 POSITIVE CASES DETAINEES POPULATION I CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY 2 TESTED

AS OF 07/04/2020 UNDER ISOLATION OR MONITORING AS OF AS OF 07/03/2020 07/09/2020 22,579 11,828 883

COVID-19 ICE Detainee Statistics by Facility AS OF 07/09/2020

Confirmed cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Atlanta Field Office Charleston County Detention Center 2 0 2 Folkston ICE Processing Center 6 0 6 (D. Ray James) Irwin County Detention Center 14 0 16 Stewart Detention Center 33 1 67 Boston Field Office Bristol County Detention Center 0 1 Franklin County House of Corrections 5 0 6 Strafford County Corrections 2 0 2 Wyatt Detention Center 0 0 2 Buffalo Field Office Buffalo (Batavia) Service Processing 0 0 49 Center r'' ,Chicago Field Office Lincoln County Detention Center 0 0 1 Pulaski County Detention Center 5 0 50 Dallas Field Office

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 1 /4 7/10/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on FiledCOVID-19 07/13/20 I ICE Page 22 of 26 Page ID Confirmed #:4233 cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed CustodyiAOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4 Bluebonnet Detention Facility 151 0 286 Johnson County Law Enforcement 0 1 Center Moore Detention Center 12 0 12 Prairieland Detention Facility 11 0 55 Rolling Plains Detention Center 0 0 55 Denver Field Office Aurora Contract Detention Facility 10 0 17 Detroit Field Office Calhoun County Correctional Center 3 0 6 Morrow County Correctional Facility 0 0 48 Saint Clair County Jail 3 0 10 El Paso Field Office El Paso Service Processing Center 21 0 133 Otero County Processing Center 1 0 142 Torrance County Detention Center 31 0 55 Houston Field Office Houston Contract Detention Facility 2 0 106 IAN Polk Adult Detention Facility 0 0 16 Joe Corley Detention Center 1 0 42 Montgomery Processing Center 22 0 202 (Houston) Los Angeles Field Office Adelento ICE Processing Center 11 0 14 Miami Field Office Broward Transitional Center 9 0 29 Glades County Detention Center 49 0 114 Krome North Service Processing 13 0 47 Center Wakulla County Jail 1 0 1 Newark Field Office Elizabeth Detention Center 0 0 18 Essex County Jail 6 0 8 New Orleans Field Office Adams County Correctional Center 0 0 35 Alexandria Staging Facility 27 0 85 Catahoula Correctional Center 56 0 108 " ---"Etowah County Jail 5 0 6 Jackson Parish Correctional 2 0 2 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - Jena 1 0 16 LaSalle ICE Processing Center - 011a 9 0 15

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 2/4 7/10/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on FiledCOVID-19 07/13/20 I ICE Page 23 of 26 Page ID Confirmed #:4234 cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4

„...--..Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center 1 0 31 Richwood Correctional Center 0 0 65 River Correctional Center 5 0 7

South Louisiana Correctional Center 2 0 2 Winn Correctional Center 6 0 127 New York City Field Office Bergen County Jail 0 0 2 Hudson County Jail 5 0 14 Philadelphia Field Office Pike County Correctional Facility 0 0 22 York County Prison 0 0 1 Phoenix Field Office CCA Florence Correctional Center 2 0 13 Eloy Federal Contract Facility 116 0 250 Florence Detention Center 4 0 36 La Palma Correctional Facility 7 0 99 Salt Lake City Field Office Nevada Southern Detention Center 8 0 8 i' —NNye County Jail 23 0 23 Washington County Jail 1 0 1 San Antonio Field Office El Valle Detention Facility 2 0 2 Karnes County Residential Center 24 0 35 Port Isabel Detention Center 10 0 84 South Texas ICE Processing Center 15 0 62 (Pearsall) Webb County Detention Center (CCA) 6 0 7 San Diego Field Office Imperial Regional Detention Facility 0 0 2 Otay Mesa Detention Center (San 4 1 168 Diego CDF) San Luis Regional Detention Center 2 0 7 San Francisco Field Office Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center 1 0 1 Seattle Field Office Tacoma ICE Processing Center 1 0 4 (Northwest Detention Center) — St. Paul Field Office Polk County Jail 1 0 12 Washington D.C. Field Office Caroline Detention Facility 0 0 3

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 3/4 7/10/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on FiledCOVID-19 07/13/20 I ICE Page 24 of 26 Page ID Confirmed #:4235 cases currently under Detainee Total confirmed Custody/AOR/Facility isolation or monitoring deaths 3 COVID-19 cases 4

Immigration Centers of America - 102 0 106 7armville

TOTAL 883 2 3,090

Updated 07/10/2020 3:45pm

I ICE's FY 2019 Average Daily Population was 50,165.

3 "Detainee deaths" includes detainees who have died after testing positive for COVID-19 while in ICE custody; COVID-19 may not be the official cause of death.

I Return to top

Last Reviewed/Updated: 07/10/2020

https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 4/4 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-1 Filed 07/13/20 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:4236

EXHIBIT E 7/13/2020 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK DocumentICE Guidance 207-1 on Filed COVID-19 07/13/20 I ICE Page 26 of 26 Page ID Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security #:4237 ICE r""*"•\ sport Crimes: Email or Call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

NOTICE

Click here for the latest ICE guidance on COVID-19

ICE Guidance on COVID-19

Overview & Employee Confirmed iCE Detainee Judicial Previous FAQs Cases Statistics Releases Statements

ICE EMPLOYEES There have been 45 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among ICE employees AT working in ICE detention facilities. DETENTION CENTERS • 1 at Adelanto ICE Processing Center (Adelanto, CA)

45 • 15 at Alexandria Staging Facility (Alexandria, LA) • 2 at Aurora Contract Detention Facility (Aurora, CO)

• 1 in Bergen County Jail (Hackensack, NJ)

• 1 at Butler County Jail (Hamilton, OH)

• 1 at El Paso Processing Center (El Paso, TX)

• 2 at Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility (Elizabeth, NJ)

• 1 at Eloy Detention Center (Eloy, AZ)

• 1 at Essex County Correctional Facility (Newark, NJ)

• 1 at Florence Correctional Center (Florence, AZ)

• 2 at Houston Contract Detention Facility (Houston, TX)

• 1 at Hudson County Jail (Kearny, NJ)

• 2 at La Salle ICE Processing Center (Jena, AL)

• 11 at Otay Mesa Detention Center (San Diego, CA)

• 2 at Stewart Detention Center (Lumpkin, GA)

• 1 at T. Don Hutto Residential Center (Taylor, TX)

Updated 06/18/2020 4:55pm

ICE EMPLOYEES There have been 153 confirmed cases of COVID-19 among ICE employees not assigned to detention facilities. 153

Updated 06/18/2020 4:55pm

Last Reviewed/Updated: 07/10/2020

https://www.ice.govicoronavirus 1/2 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:4238

1 Timothy P. Fox (CA Bar 157750) [email protected] 2 Elizabeth Jordan* [email protected] 3 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND 4 ENFORCEMENT CENTER 1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400 5 Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 757-7901 6 Fax: (303) 872-9072

7 Lisa Graybill* Stuart Seaborn (CA Bar 198590) [email protected] [email protected] 8 Jared Davidson* Melissa Riess (CA Bar 295959) [email protected] [email protected] 9 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES CENTER 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor 10 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 Berkeley, California 94704 11 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Tel: (510) 665-8644 Tel: (504) 486-8982 Fax: (510) 665-8511 12 Fax: (504) 486-8947

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE 17 18 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx)

19 Plaintiffs, v. FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL 20 DECLARATION OF DR. HOMER VENTERS REGARDING ICE 21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., PRR AND ONGOING COVID-19 22 RESPONSE Defendants. 23 24

25 26

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:4239

1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (213) 629-2020 Tel: (415) 773-5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 6 Fax: (415) 773-5759 Leigh Coutoumanos** 7 Michael W. Johnson** [email protected] [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & 8 Dania Bardavid** GALLAGHER LLP [email protected] 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 9 Jessica Blanton** Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 10 Joseph Bretschneider** Fax: (202) 303-2000 11 [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & Shalini Goel Agarwal 12 GALLAGHER LLP (CA Bar 254540) 787 Seventh Avenue [email protected] 13 New York, NY 10019 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Tel: (212) 728-8000 CENTER 14 Fax: (212) 728-8111 106 East College Avenue Suite 1010 15 Maia Fleischman* Tallahassee, FL 32301 [email protected] Tel: (850) 521-3024 16 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Fax: (850) 521-3001 CENTER 17 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales 18 Suite 3750 (CA Bar 308550) Miami, FL 33131 [email protected] 19 Tel: (786) 347-2056 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION Fax: (786) 237-2949 AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 20 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 Christina Brandt-Young* Los Angeles, CA 90027 21 [email protected] Tel: (805) 813-8896 DISABILITY RIGHTS Fax: (303) 872-9072 22 ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor 23 New York, NY 10017 24 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 25

26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:4240

1 FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. HOMER VENTERS REGARDING ICE PRR AND ONGOING COVID-19 RESPONSE 2

3 I, Homer Venters, make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 4 that the following is true and correct. 5 6 1. I am a correctional health expert and have previously submitted several declarations that detail the grossly insufficient response of ICE to the 7 COVID-19 pandemic. I have focused my prior declarations on the potential 8 risks of serious illness and death that ICE practices create for high-risk individuals in their custody. My extensive background in correctional 9 medicine is detailed in my first declaration and in my curriculum vitae 10 attached thereto. ECF 81-11.

11 2. Since April 2020, I have worked exclusively on COVID-19 responses in detention settings. During this time, I have conducted in-person inspections 12 of detention facilities to assess the adequacy of their COVID-19 responses in 13 the following settings; • MDC Brooklyn (BOP), NY 14 • MCC Manhattan (BOP), NY 15 • FCI Danbury (BOP), CT 16 • Cook County Jail, IL • Sullivan County Jail, NY 17 • Broome County Jail, NY 18 • Shelby County Jail, TN

19 3. I have been asked by Plaintiffs’ attorneys to review the declarations of Tae 20 Johnson and Ada Rivera recently submitted on behalf of ICE. I have also reviewed the ERO Transfer Checklist provided by ICE. ECF 205-1. 21 4. It is crucial that ICE respond to COVID-19 in a centralized and cohesive 22 manner in order to ensure that people—especially medically vulnerable 23 people—are protected from COVID-19. As I have explained in prior declarations in this case, this includes, inter alia, ensuring that medical staff 24 are provided the most up-to-date clinical guidance, that medical staffing 25 levels be audited to ensure appropriate resources, and that medically vulnerable people are provided with adequate surveillance and care 26 planning. Despite these needs, the declaration of Tae Johnson makes clear 27 that ICE continues to refuse to design and implement a unified COVID-19 28 1 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Fourth Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters Regarding ICE PRR and Ongoing COVID-19 Response

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:4241

1 response. ECF 204-2. It is essential that ICE implement a unified and centralized approach to its COVID-19 response because the complexity of 2 the ICE detention system, and the evolving nature of the pandemic, create a 3 situation in which ICE may be unaware of local practices and needs, and health services in individual facilities may quickly become overwhelmed by 4 new cases of COVID-19, unable to keep track with updated CDC and other 5 expert guidance. 6 5. The ongoing need for a unified response to COVID-19 is apparent in Mr. 7 Johnson’s declaration. For example, he argues in his declaration that the 8 Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR) is not intended to address clinical screening or other aspects of the COVID-19 response and thus, the lack of 9 any clear guidance on how high-risk patients should be cared for and 10 protected is acceptable. This point is undercut by ICE’s own policies and procedures, which clearly establish that the PRR and related documents form 11 the backbone of the entire ICE response to COVID-19 in detention settings. 12 For example, one of the first sections of the PRR lists updated signs and symptoms of COVID-19. The PRR also mandates that a clinical assessment 13 occur of the high-risk patients in every facility and that communication 14 occur with the ICE Field Medical Coordinator. There is no other centralized policy or protocol in which ICE mandates such a clinical assessment or 15 reporting regarding high-risk detainees. In fact, Dr. Rivera states in her 16 declaration that high risk patients will be “monitored” on a regular basis through existing chronic care clinics, but does not state any actual policy, 17 protocol or specific type of encounter that will be utilized to implement and 18 perform quality assurance on this monitoring. ECF 204-17. This is a critical failing and ICE should conduct a specific COVID-19 encounter with each 19 high-risk patient to assess their specific vulnerability form COVID-19 20 infection and should utilize a standard template to conduct this encounter and assess whether these encounters have occurred. 21 22 6. The PRR reflects the centralized ERO document utilized for COVID-19 response, and one of the core protocols cited by Dr. Rivera is the COVID-19 23 Checklist for All ICE ERO Transfers, Removals and Releases. The use of 24 this ERO document to manage the clinical and custodial aspects of detainee transfers makes clear that ICE generally, and medical leadership such as Dr. 25 Rivera, rely on the ERO documents as critical policies and protocols. The 26 argument used by Mr. Johnson to contend that the plans to create adequate clinical management of high-risk detainees can be found in the individual 27 practices and protocols of the various facilities and component staff of ICE 28 2 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Fourth Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters Regarding ICE PRR and Ongoing COVID-19 Response

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:4242

1 and its contractors completely sidesteps this glaring omission. ICE has created a centralized plan for identification of high-risk detainees and has 2 invoked their medical needs without actually mandating any specific policies 3 or procedures to ensure their health and safety. Those policies and procedures belong in this PRR and are absent from this or any other 4 document. Absent centralized guidance, there is a substantial risk that the 5 response to COVID-19 will be ad hoc across ICE’s facilities. This is 6 especially true given ICE’s history of failed oversight and the fact that IHSC does not provide direct care at all facilities. 7 8 7. Further, there are several deficiencies in the ICE transfer checklist itself that relate to the overall inadequacies of the ICE COVID-19 response for high 9 risk detainees. First, there is no designation anywhere on the form whether 10 the person is high-risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19. This is a critical omission because any staff or outside agencies involved in the 11 transfer of a high-risk detainee should be appraised of their potential rapid 12 decompensation should they become ill. For similar reasons, this form is deficient because it does not include any information about whether a person 13 was identified through contact tracing as a close contact of a known 14 COVID-19 case. This form also has a checkbox for performing symptoms screening but does not include the actual screening questions. These should 15 be included just as is common practice when a person enters a detention 16 center as a staff member or detainee. A clear instruction regarding use of appropriate PPE should be part of this checklist, so that staff can verify they 17 have adequate supplies. Finally, there should be a question about being 18 offered testing, since every person leaving a facility should be offered testing and their results should be documented on this form. 19 8. Mr. Johnson defends the lack of testing among ICE detainees with two 20 points that are both erroneous. First, Mr. Johnson contends that the lack of 21 wider testing in ICE facilities reflects the inability to implement broad based testing due to lack of testing resources. Since April of 2020, large 22 correctional systems have implemented widespread testing, including testing 23 of asymptomatic detained people. Some of the largest State prison systems, including Texas, Ohio and Tennessee began this process in April and May. 24 In the Bureau of Prisons, many hard-hit facilities initiated mass testing in 25 April and May as well. If numerous local, state and Federal detention systems were able to implement widespread testing beginning in April, there 26 is no reason that ICE could not have done the same. As I explained in my 27 last declaration, increased testing is absolutely crucial to protect medically 28 3 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Fourth Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters Regarding ICE PRR and Ongoing COVID-19 Response

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:4243

1 vulnerable people. ICE’s practice of limiting testing to people who are symptomatic or at intake is not a sufficient method to ensure that people are 2 protected. 3 4 9. A second erroneous point referenced by Mr. Johnson to support the lack of expended testing is an inaccurate comparison of the total number of tests 5 conducted inside Federal BOP facilities and ICE facilities. If one considers 6 the people held in these settings, it becomes clear that in the four months of this pandemic, the total population of ICE detainees would have turned over 7 many times more than the total BOP population. ICE has not published 8 updated length of stay data, but people generally stay in ICE detention approximately 100 days, and in BOP detention several years. The churn of 9 people in and out of ICE detention means that more people are admitted and 10 exposed to COVID-19 per bed of capacity than in the BOP. In addition, Mr. Johnson appears to base his calculation of the percentage of detained people 11 tested on the census number from the end of June, approximately 23,000, 12 and ignores the larger denominator of ICE detainees during most of the Pandemic, such as those who have been deported. Most of the infections and 13 tests in question have occurred when the ICE census of detainees was far 14 larger that is was on June 27th, making this calculation erroneous. Finally, the most important numbers to be considered in this discussion are ignored 15 by Mr. Johnson and ICE. Generally, the positivity rate hovers at or above 16 50% in comparison to wider communities where the rate is well below 10%.1 There is no doubt that detention settings represent areas of extremely 17 high concentration of COVID-19 and the risk of death among detained 18 people is estimated to be several times higher than for people in community settings.2 New guidance from the CDC regarding testing in correctional 19 settings makes clear that asymptomatic testing is an appropriate strategy 20 when widespread transmission of COVID-19 is occurring, which describes many ICE detention settings.3 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States, pursuant

23 1 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2020/06/16/486338 24 /data-coronavirus-outbreak-immigration-detention-offer-questions-answers/ 2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us- 25 cases.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage&action=cli ck&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#states and 26 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768249 3 27 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction- detention/testing.html 28 4 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Fourth Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters Regarding ICE PRR and Ongoing COVID-19 Response

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-2 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:4244

1 to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, memory, and belief. 2

3 Executed on the 13th of July, in the year 2020, in the city of Port Washington, New York. 4

5 6 7 8 Dr. Homer Venters 9 10

11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Fourth Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters Regarding ICE PRR and Ongoing COVID-19 Response

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:4245

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE 18 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. DECLARATION OF ROBSON JOSE ERNESTO 21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 22 ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

23 Defendants. 24

26 27

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:4246

1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (213) 629-2020 Tel: (415) 773-5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 6 Fax: (415) 773-5759 Leigh Coutoumanos** 7 Michael W. Johnson** [email protected] [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & 8 Dania Bardavid** GALLAGHER LLP [email protected] 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 9 Jessica Blanton** Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 10 Joseph Bretschneider** Fax: (202) 303-2000 11 [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & Shalini Goel Agarwal 12 GALLAGHER LLP (CA Bar 254540) 787 Seventh Avenue [email protected] 13 New York, NY 10019 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Tel: (212) 728-8000 CENTER 14 Fax: (212) 728-8111 106 East College Avenue Suite 1010 15 Maia Fleischman* Tallahassee, FL 32301 [email protected] Tel: (850) 521-3024 16 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Fax: (850) 521-3001 CENTER 17 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales 18 Suite 3750 (CA Bar 308550) Miami, FL 33131 [email protected] 19 Tel: (786) 347-2056 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION Fax: (786) 237-2949 AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 20 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 Christina Brandt-Young* Los Angeles, CA 90027 21 [email protected] Tel: (805) 813-8896 DISABILITY RIGHTS Fax: (303) 872-9072 22 ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor 23 New York, NY 10017 24 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 25

26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming 28

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:4247

1 DECLARATION OF ROBSON JOSE ERNESTO

2 I, Robson Jose Ernesto, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 3 28 USC. § 1746 as follows: 4 1. I am at least 18 years of age, and I am competent to make this declaration. 5 2. My name is Robson Jose Ernesto. I am 43 years old, and I am originally 6 from Brazil. I am currently detained at Winn Correctional Center (Winn) in 7 Winnfield, Louisiana. Prior to Winn, I was detained at Etowah County 8 Detention Center (Etowah) in Gadsden, Alabama. I entered Etowah in 9 March 2020. I was transferred to Winn on July 3, 2020. 10 11 3. On June 15, 2020, my attorney submitted a Fraihat reconsideration request 12 on my behalf because I have chronic high blood pressure that has been 13 poorly managed in ICE custody. For example, although I take Lisinopril for 14 my blood pressure, ICE fails to provide me with my medication consistently. 15 My attorney informed me that an ICE officer responded to the request the 16 next day, confirming that I am a Fraihat subclass member because I have 17 hypertension, a COVID-19 risk factor. The ICE officer reported that ICE 18 conducted a custody redetermination review and determined that I should 19 stay detained. 20 4. On June 26, 2020, I began feeling sick with a fever, headache, and a sore 21 throat. 22 5. When I began feeling sick, I knew I had a fever because I had body aches 23 and chills. I was also experiencing terrible headaches and had trouble 24 breathing. I would sit under the shower for half an hour to try and reduce my 25 fever. Although I was scared to tell staff about my fever because I heard 26 people were brought to isolation if they had a fever and left there for a week 27 28 1 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4248

1 without receiving adequate medical treatment, I submitted a sick call that 2 same day, reporting a sore throat and a headache. 3 6. On Monday, June 29, 2020, after spending the entire weekend very sick with 4 a fever, a nurse responded to my sick call. I told him I was not feeling well 5 and having trouble breathing. The nurse checked my vitals and sent me back 6 to the dorm. The nurse did not check my oxygen or offer me a COVID-19 7 test. I did not tell the nurse that I thought I had COVID-19 because I was 8 scared to be locked in isolation without medical care. 9 10 7. On Thursday, July 2, 2020, I was transferred out of Etowah. I still felt sick. I 11 was not told why I was being transferred. No one asked me how I was 12 feeling and there was no nurse around to let them know. I was not tested for 13 COVID-19 during the transfer process. 14 8. I brought the mask I was given at Etowah with me on the bus. When I got to 15 the bus, there were about 20 to 25 men and four women on the bus. I believe 16 they were from another jail in Alabama. I believe everyone on the bus had a 17 mask, but they would take it off after a while because they would get hot or 18 lower their mask to speak. The guards on the bus did not instruct people on 19 how to use the mask. It was not possible to social distance on the bus 20 because we were packed into so tightly. 21 9. After an entire day of traveling, we arrived to Jena, Louisiana, around 10:30 22 pm. At Jena, the staff took my temperature. I was not told of the results. The 23 staff at Jena did not ask me any other questions. I had a terrible headache 24 and asked for my blood pressure medication. A staff member said she would 25 bring it, but I never received it. At Jena, I was also given a paper in English 26 to sign. I do not know what it said, but I signed it. 27 28 2 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:4249

1 10. When we arrived at Jena, we were not given a place to sleep. We were 2 tightly packed in a cell and had to sit on a bench. People took their masks off 3 to eat their food and afterwards, no one put their masks back on. It was very 4 cold in the cell, I saw people huddle together very closely for warmth. We 5 left at 7 am the next morning. We got on another bus, again tightly packed, 6 and I arrived in Winn later that day on July 3, 2020. 7 11. When I arrived at Winn, medical took our temperatures. They did not ask me 8 any questions. I told medical that I have had a headache for 10 or 11 days. 9 Medical told me I would see a doctor after the weekend. I was put in the 10 general population. The dorm had about 25 people. Later that evening, I 11 asked about my blood pressure medication again and the nurse on duty said 12 she did not have it. 13 14 12. On July 6, 2020, I finally received my blood pressure medication after not 15 having it for five days. 16 13. I was tested for COVID-19 on July 7, 2020. On July 9, 2020, I found out I 17 tested positive for COVID-19. After I tested positive, I was never brought 18 back to the general population. I was placed in a dorm with six men, all who 19 had COVID-19 symptoms. Winn staff keeps sending new people with 20 symptoms into the dorm—there are almost 30 men together now. I have 21 been in quarantine with people for almost a week, but every day I am in 22 contact with newly infected people so I do not know when my quarantine 23 will end. 24 14. At Winn, nurses take my blood pressure, temperature, and pulse daily. They 25 do not tell me the results, so I do not know how I am doing. It has been over 26 14 days since I first got sick, and luckily, I am beginning to feel a little 27 28 3 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:4250

1 better, although I am still having trouble breathing and experiencing 2 headaches. 3 This statement was read to me with the assistance of a Portuguese interpreter, and I 4 was able to make the necessary corrections and changes. I declare under penalty of 5 perjury that the statements above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 6 I have given my attorney permission to sign this declaration on my behalf due to 7 the pandemic. 8 9 10 Signature: 11 12 Maia Fleischman on behalf of Robson Jose Ernesto 13 Date: 7/13/2020 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:4251

1 I, Maia Fleischman declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows: 3 1. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in Florida. I am an attorney of 4 record in Fraihat v. ICE, Case 5:19-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal.). 5 2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed the attached 6 declaration on Robson Jose Ernesto’s behalf with his express consent. 7 3. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most 8 inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Protection 9 (CDC) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of 10 infection when traveling. Mr. Ernesto is detained at Winn Correctional 11 Center in Winnfield, Louisiana while I live in Miami, Florida. In addition, 12 there have now been two known COVID-19 related deaths in ICE detention 13 centers and 883 current confirmed cases of COVID-19 among detained 14 people in ICE custody with 11,828 people tested. There are 127 confirmed 15 cases within the detained population at Winn. 16 4. ICE is discouraging in-person legal visits due to COVID-19. ICE is only 17 allowing legal visits for essential business; otherwise, ICE encourages phone 18 appointments with lawyers to their clients. This policy requires legal visitors 19 to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable 20 vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention 21 facility. The policy has not been updated since April 2, 2020. Further, I am 22 at high risk for COVID-19 infection and complications. To protect both my 23 and public health, I am not able to obtain Mr. Ernesto’s signature. 24 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to Winn 25 to obtain Mr. Ernesto’s’ signature. 26 6. I spoke with Mr. Ernesto over the phone. While we were speaking, I used a 27 Portuguese translator to translate the declaration into Portuguese for Mr. 28 5 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:4252

1 Ernesto review for accuracy, confirmation of the contents, and approval. Mr. 2 Ernesto has confirmed that I can sign on his behalf as reflected in his 3 declaration. 4

5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements above are true and correct to 6 the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on July 13, 2020 7 in Miami, Florida. 8

9 10

11 Maia Fleischman 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Robson Jose Ernesto

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:4253

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page)

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE 17 18 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx)

19 Plaintiffs, v. DECLARATION OF GREGG 20 GONSALVES

21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS th ENFORCEMENT, et al., Date: July 17 , 2020 22 Defendants. 23 24

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:4254

1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (213) 629-2020 Tel: (415) 773-5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 6 Fax: (415) 773-5759 Leigh Coutoumanos** 7 Michael W. Johnson** [email protected] [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & 8 Dania Bardavid** GALLAGHER LLP [email protected] 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 9 Jessica Blanton** Washington, DC 20006 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 10 Joseph Bretschneider** Fax: (202) 303-2000 11 [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & Shalini Goel Agarwal 12 GALLAGHER LLP (CA Bar 254540) 787 Seventh Avenue [email protected] 13 New York, NY 10019 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Tel: (212) 728-8000 CENTER 14 Fax: (212) 728-8111 106 East College Avenue Suite 1010 15 Maia Fleischman* Tallahassee, FL 32301 [email protected] Tel: (850) 521-3024 16 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Fax: (850) 521-3001 CENTER 17 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales 18 Suite 3750 (CA Bar 308550) Miami, FL 33131 [email protected] 19 Tel: (786) 347-2056 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION Fax: (786) 237-2949 AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 20 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 Christina Brandt-Young* Los Angeles, CA 90027 21 [email protected] Tel: (805) 813-8896 DISABILITY RIGHTS Fax: (303) 872-9072 22 ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor 23 New York, NY 10017 24 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 25

26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 27 **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:4255

1 DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR GREGG GONSALVES, Ph.D. 2 I, Gregg Gonsalves, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, that the following is 3 true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 4 5 RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS 6 1. I am an Assistant Professor in Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at the 7 Yale School of Medicine and an Associate Professor of Law and Research 8 Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. I co-direct the Yale Law School/Yale 9 School of Public Health Global Health Justice Partnership. I was the Co- 10 Director of the Yale Law School/Yale School of Public Health/Yale Medical 11 School Collaboration on Research Integrity and Transparency and the Co- Faculty Director of Global Health Studies at Yale College until May 2020. 12 Among others, I also have held appointments at Harvard Medical School, 13 the Institut Pasteur, and the University of Cape Town. I attended Yale 14 College and received a PhD in public health from Yale University. In 2018, I 15 received a MacArthur “genius” grant (i.e. MacArthur Fellowship) from the 16 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. 17 2. I have worked for over three decades on epidemic diseases, including 18 HIV/AIDS and other global health problems. My research has focused on 19 the use of quantitative models to improve our response to epidemic diseases. 20 I have published over a dozen articles on epidemic disease, including in The 21 Lancet, Science, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of 22 Clinical Epidemiology. I have received grants for my research from, among 23 others, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the 24 National Institute on Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 25 the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Levi-Strauss Foundation, and the 26 Open Society Foundation. The total amount of the grants on which I have 27 28 1 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:4256

1 served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator is over $5.5 2 million. 3 3. For the purposes of this declaration I have reviewed declarations by Tae 4 Johnson, Dr. Ada Rivera, and Bryan S. Pitman filed in this case. 5 4. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A. 6 7 5. I am not being compensated for my work on this case.

8 6. I have not testified at trial or by deposition in the last four years. 9 THE COURSE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 10 7. There are currently signs that in some parts of the country through 11 aggressive social distancing it has been possible to “bend the curve” and 12 reduce the rate of new SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, even in areas 13 where it has been possible to successfully bend the curve, this does not mean 14 that the deadliest part of the pandemic is past. The increasingly uncontrolled 15 and aggressive spread of SARS-CoV-2 in other parts of the country is a 16 frightening illustration of this continuing risk. These outbreaks all across the 17 United States make new waves of infection nationally more likely, as unless 18 SARS-CoV-2 is controlled everywhere, it is unlikely to be controlled 19 anywhere over the long term in this country. Thus, even in areas where the 20 pandemic is currently at an ebb, there remains a significant risk of 21 resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 and at least one second wave over the coming 22 months and years with some estimates projecting the possibility of new 23 waves of the pandemic as far out at 2025.1

24 8. Bending the curve does not obviate the need for aggressive social 25 distancing. Bending the curve will only have been possible due to 26 1 Stephen M. Kissler, et al., Projecting the Transmission Dynamics of SARRS-CoV- 27 2 Through the Postpandemic Period, 368 Science 860(May 22, 2020), 28 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6493/860 2 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:4257

1 aggressive social distancing. The only responsible way to proceed with any 2 relaxation of social distancing would be gradually. It can only happen 3 successfully in the context of substantial decreases of two weeks or more in 4 new hospitalizations and cases, accompanied by testing for new cases of 5 COVID-19, tracing of the close contacts of new cases, and isolation or 6 quarantine of both. A dramatic relaxation of social distancing just because 7 the curve had bent would be akin to closing an umbrella during a rainstorm 8 because one has not yet gotten wet. Premature relaxation of social distancing 9 presents an almost certain risk of rebound in infections, and potential spread 10 even to areas that still have social distancing measures in place. Indeed, as 11 epidemiologists warned, areas of the country that reopened too early or too 12 abruptly have seen spikes in cases and hospitalizations, and now several states are beginning to see the results in the form of increasing deaths. 13 14 9. There is a strong likelihood that even in states where the COVID-19 15 pandemic is currently at an ebb, it will return in multiple waves, rather 16 than be eradicated completely after an initial burst. While the severity 17 and recurrence of these waves will depend on a number of factors, there are 18 several reasons why this epidemic will likely include at least one second wave, if not multiple. Some of these factors are biological, others have more 19 to do with how we as a society respond. 20 21 10. Risk of Seasonality. Because of the novelty of SARS-CoV-2, we do not yet 22 have empirical data on its seasonality—the dynamic relationship between 23 the spread of the virus and the weather. However, we can infer from related coronaviruses that there is a significant risk of another SARS-CoV-2 24 outbreak in temperate regions at the outset of colder weather. SARS-Cov-2 25 is in the genus betacoronavirus, comprising a number of other coronaviruses 26 including ones that can cause the common cold. Several of these viruses 27 spread more easily during colder weather, resulting in annual outbreaks. 28 3 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:4258

1 This is precisely what occurred during the last major pandemic of a 2 respiratory illness, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, where a second wave 3 of the pandemic was even deadlier than the first wave. 4 11. Diminishing Immunity. Once again because of its novelty, we do not yet 5 have empirical data on how long immunity to SARS-CoV-2 lasts once 6 developed. Contrary to the way it is sometimes imagined, immunity is not 7 black and white. Instead, there are levels of immunity, often based on the 8 levels of antibodies in the body. At the moment, there are still open 9 questions about whether individuals who recover from COVID-19 will have 10 developed full immunity even in the immediate aftermath. However, even 11 assuming that most people who recover from COVID-19 will have 12 developed immunity, it is still unknown how long this immunity will last. 13 Looking to other betacoronaviruses again allows us to infer that there is a 14 significant risk that immunity will diminish substantially over time; whether 15 that is measured in months or years is uncertain. The coronaviruses that 16 cause the common cold spur only short-term immunity waning after several 17 months. Antibodies to the related coronavirus (SARS-CoV) that caused the 18 SARS epidemic in 2002-2004, likely wane after several years. 19 12. Relaxations of social distancing can “unbend” the curve. So far, high 20 degrees of social distancing have proven to be the only effective method at 21 dramatically reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Until the discovery of a 22 vaccine to prevent transmission or antiviral drugs, which can extend survival 23 and save lives, this will remain the case. As a result, there is a significant risk that relaxation of social distancing restrictions while the virus continues 24 to circulate in the community will lead to an uptick in infections. This is 25 especially true if social distancing measures are relaxed prematurely. 26 Because of concerns about the economic harm of extended social distancing, 27 various jurisdictions in the United States revoked stay-at-home orders and 28 4 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:4259

1 reduced rules on social distancing and PPE, even as the number of new cases 2 remains high. Troublingly, because the illness can remain asymptomatic for 3 many people and because we do not have regular, reliable, comprehensive 4 testing in most places in the US or reliable contact tracing, the number of 5 people infected with SARS-COV2 in our communities is likely to be far 6 larger than the number of documented diagnosed cases. In fact, for every 7 documented case a recent MIT study suggested that there may be 11-12 8 times as many undetected infections among us.2 This means that for people 9 still susceptible to the disease who have been social distancing for the past 10 several months, if they venture out into public spaces as basic precautions 11 are relaxed they will be faced with a far larger pool of potentially infected 12 individuals than they might have encountered in February or March of this year. This sets the conditions for a rebound of the pandemic that could be 13 larger than the initial wave of infections and deaths—precisely what 14 happened in the pandemic of 1918. 15 16 13. We have begun to see a second wave in areas that reopened 17 prematurely. While there are arguments for categorizing what is happening 18 as either a “second wave” or an extension of the first wave, what is clear is that at the time of this declaration, the United States is setting new records 19 daily for the most new confirmed COVID-19 cases.3 In some of the most- 20 populous states in the country, the number of COVID-19 cases and the rate 21 of hospitalization are rising exponentially. In California, which had already 22

23 2 Alexandra Kelley, New MIT Study Says Actual Number of Coronavirus Cases Is 24 12 Times Higher Than Reported- With 50 Percent More Deaths, The Hill (July 1, 2020), https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/medical-advances/505409- 25 coronavirus-cases-may-be-widely-underreported 26 3 Madeline Holcombe & Holly Yan, Louisiana Governor Says Progress Against Coronavirus Has Been Wiped Out in Past Three Weeks, CNN (July 8, 2020), 27 https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html (“The US set a new record for the most number of cases reported in a single day -- 28 60,021 on Tuesday.”). 5 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:4260

1 had a significant outbreak, hospitalizations are at an “all-time high.”4 2 Hospitals in these states are already beginning to run out of ICU capacity, 3 reminiscent of the most dangerous moments of the pandemic in the 4 Northeast.5 While deaths from COVID-19 nationally have been decreasing, 5 deaths in some of the states that are currently experiencing surges are now 6 rising. As we saw in the initial spike of COVID-19 cases, deaths can lag 7 over five weeks behind a spike in confirmed cases.6 Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, 8 the chief medical advisor to the President’s COVID-19 task force, recently 9 warned that “it’s a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death.”7

10 14. Even in states that have proceeded more cautiously, the risk is currently

11 mitigated but not controlled. The reproduction number (Rt) is the number 12 of new infections that an infected person is likely to cause. When this 13 number is above 1.0, the rate at which the virus is spreading is still 14 accelerating, a strong sign that the outbreak is not under control. In New 15 York and New Jersey, public health experts estimate that Rt is around 1.04 8 16 for New York and 1.07 in New Jersey. This is a concerning sign, since prior 9 17 to reopening, both states had fallen to a Rt of around 0.65. 18 15. The current spike in cases in various states poses a significant risk to 19 other states where the pandemic is currently mitigated, especially as 20 that second group of states continues to reopen. Individual states 21 currently do not have anything like the resources or ability to adequately 22 4 Id. 23 5 Id. 6 Id. (quoting Dr. Rochelle Walensky, infectious diseases chief at Massachusetts 24 General Hospital, that deaths can lag “two, three, four, five weeks after” after reported cases) 25 7 Id. 8 Rt covid-19, https://rt.live/ (with confidence intervals of 0.83 – 1.25 and 0.78 – 26 1.25, respectively); see also https://covidtracking.com/; https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-states/ (estimating Rt in New 27 York to be 1.1 and New Jersey to be 0.9). 9 28 Id. 6 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:4261

1 enforce quarantines on other states. Accordingly, absent significantly more 2 action at the national level than we have seen so far to quarantine states that 3 are currently experiencing uncontrolled surges, there is a high risk that these 4 outbreaks will spread to other states where significantly more progress had 5 been made. Recently, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy sounded the alarm

6 about the rising Rt in the state, saying that “flare-ups” were being caused by 7 travel from outside the state.10 Much of the attention about the current spike 8 has focused on large states in the South and West. But Delaware, which 9 borders New Jersey, has seen a 111% rise in new cases over the last two 11 10 weeks, a greater rise than Arizona, California, or Texas. Pennsylvania, 11 which borders both New York and New Jersey, has seen an almost 40% rise 12 12 in new cases over that same period of time. The risk of spread from spiking states to safer states is particularly high as safer states progressively 13 reopen, since this will inevitably increase the avenues for potential 14 transmission. The rise in Rt in places like New York and New Jersey 15 illustrate how reopening can increase the level of transmission. This creates 16 a softer target for another outbreak. 17 18 16. Consistent with the above, the vast majority of plausible scenarios involve at least one subsequent wave. A recent study published in Science 19 models different potential courses of the COVID-19 pandemic based on 20 modifications of the three crucial variables identified above: (1) seasonality, 21 (2) the rate at which immunity degrades over time, and (3) differential levels 22 of social distancing for different lengths of time.13 Notably, the vast majority 23 of these scenarios involved at least one subsequent peak after the initial 24 10 P, Kenneth Burns, N.J. Coronavirus Recovery: Officials Concerned After 25 Infection Rate Ticks Up, WHYY (July 6, 2020), https://whyy.org/articles/n-j- coronavirus-recovery-rutgers-announces-plans-for-fall-lottery-for-rental-help/ 26 11 Tracking Our COVID-19 Response, https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/ 12 Id. 27 13 Stephen M. Kissler et al., Projecting The Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV- 2 Through the Postpandemic Period, 368 Science 860 (May 22, 2020), 28 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/11/science.abb5793. 7 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:4262

1 outbreak had subsided. Depending on how the variables are adjusted, these 2 later peaks could be smaller, the same size, or even significantly larger than 3 the original outbreak. In particular, models involving intermittent social 4 distancing protections—in other words, periods of strict social distancing 5 followed by relaxation of limits, which are then re-imposed after spikes— 6 involved a number of subsequent peaks. 7 17. In summary, relaxed social distancing, seasonality, immunity that 8 weakens over time, and a current surge in cases in some parts of the 9 country will likely produce at least one serious future wave of COVID- 10 19 infections and deaths, if not more, even in areas where the pandemic 11 is currently mitigated. The likelihood that these later peaks will be 12 particularly dangerous will increase significantly as social distancing is 13 relaxed, if immunity degrades over time, and if SARS-CoV-2 is seasonal. 14 Based on similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and other betacoronaviruses 15 and the current wave of relaxations of social distancing rules, there is a 16 strong likelihood that each of these conditions will be met. Finally, because 17 of the failure to scale-up testing, the lags in reporting of the results of tests, 18 and the failure to put in place effective contact tracing, these new waves of infections may arrive without our knowledge until a new cohort of 19 symptomatic patients arrives at emergency rooms in our cities and towns. 20 21 THE SPECIFIC COURSE OF THE PANDEMIC IN DETENTION 22 SETTINGS LIKE ICE CUSTODY, JAILS AND PRISONS 23 18. Because of the heightened risk of congregate settings, the course of the 24 pandemic in jails, prisons, and ICE detention centers will likely differ in 25 certain ways from the course of the pandemic in society at large. Along with 26 nursing homes and meatpacking plants, jails, prisons, and detention centers 27 are institutional amplifiers creating “super-spreading events” (SSE) for 28 SARS-CoV-2. This makes them particularly dangerous for accelerating the 8 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:4263

1 spread of the disease both within the facility and to the wider community. In 2 fact, new community-wide outbreaks have been documented in several 3 counties where these institutional amplifiers are located. 4 19. There are three primary ways in which the course of the pandemic in jails, 5 prisons, and detention centers will be specific to their role as institutional 6 amplifiers of SSEs: (1) the pandemic is likely to remain worse in many 7 detention settings than on the outside or even continue worsening even as 8 conditions on the outside improve; (2) absent significant and sustained 9 reductions of the population of detention settings, these institutions are likely 10 to increase the risk of further outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in communities at 11 large; and (3) further outbreaks will be more dangerous to individuals in 12 jails, prisons, and detention centers than if they were not detained, which in 13 turn increases the risk to the broader community.

14 20. It will take longer to combat the pandemic in jails, prisons, and 15 detention centers. First, true social distancing is much more difficult in 16 congregate settings like jails and prisons. Even if the outside world is 17 increasingly successful at reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, jails and 18 prisons are likely to lag behind. For example, as of mid-June, the rate of 19 COVID-19 among inmates and staff in the New York City jail system was 20 approximately 11.64%, while in New York City as a whole the rate was 14 21 2.58%. Dr. Fauci warned that “he expects cases to spike in closed 15 22 environments like nursing homes, prisons and factories.” As such, even if 23 the situation improves significantly in the outside world, this does not mean

24 14 Legal Aid Society, COVID-19 Infection Tracking in NYC Jails, 25 https://legalaidnyc.org/covid-19-infection-tracking-in-nyc-jails/ (last visited July 8, 2020). 26 15 Donald G. McNeil Jr., As States Rush to Reopen, Scientists Fear a Coronavirus Comeback, N.Y. Times (May 21, 2020), 27 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/health/coronavirus-second-wave- 28 infections.html. 9 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:4264

1 that the level of risk will have fallen to similar levels within many jails and 2 prisons—to the contrary, the risk will remain considerably higher in these 3 congregate facilities as the conditions there offer the perfect environment for 4 the spread of the virus. 5 21. Jails, prisons, and detention centers can serve as reservoirs of COVID- 6 19. Second, detention settings can increase the risk of future outbreaks. In 7 part because they will likely lag behind society at large in managing 8 COVID-19, jails, prisons, and detention centers can serve as reservoirs of 9 SARS-CoV-2. Because it is impossible for jails and prisons to be 10 disconnected from the communities around them, the persistence of SARS- 11 CoV-2 in these facilities will pose a continual risk to the public. The risk of 12 SARS-CoV-2 persisting in these facilities will only decrease to the extent 13 the population in these facilities is reduced and remains reduced, something 14 that is particularly true when it comes to individuals at high risk from 15 COVID-19. Though many corrections departments have tried to combat 16 COVID-19 through other kinds of measures (e.g. infection control, limited 17 social distancing), the continuing and growing outbreaks in these facilities 18 show the difficulty in containing SARS-CoV-2 in these environments. It can only take one weak link to undermine society-wide efforts to combat 19 COVID-19. In Singapore, significant progress had been made to suppress 20 SARS-CoV-2 that initially showed quite promising results.16 However, 21 because communities of migrant workers living in congregate dormitories 22 were not being sufficiently protected in the way the rest of the population 23 was, SARS-CoV-2 remained more active in those populations, leading to 24 resurgent outbreaks the government had struggled to control and “one of the 25 26 16 Hillary Leung, Singapore Was a Coronavirus Success Story—Until an Outbreak 27 Showed How Vulnerable Workers Can Fall Through the Cracks, Time (Apr. 29, 2020), https://time.com/5825261/singapore-coronavirus-migrant-workers- 28 inequality/. 10 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:4265

1 highest infection rates in Asia.”17 Jails and prisons threaten to play a similar 2 role, and thus from the standpoint of public health in the society as a whole 3 it is crucial that steps be taken to reduce the risk posed by these facilities as 4 much as possible.18 As was mentioned previously, due to under-testing and 5 the lag time in obtaining and reporting test results, the discovery of new 6 outbreaks in detention settings may be delayed as well. This is all the more 7 true as we let down our guard, as we relax social distancing and try to return 8 to our normal lives before the pandemic. It is all too easy to forget what 9 happens behind bars and with the risk of new outbreaks in prisons, jails, and 10 ICE detention centers, we do this at our own peril. 11 22. Jails and prisons will serve as accelerants during any future wave. 12 Third, in the event of a subsequent outbreak, detention settings will serve as 13 an accelerant to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and people in these facilities 14 will be significantly more at risk from COVID-19. Jails, prisons, and ICE 15 detention centers are tinderboxes for infectious disease and cases of mumps, 16 measles and influenza have been documented in ICE facilities even before 19 17 the COVID-19 pandemic. Once SARS-CoV-2 is in such facilities, it will

18 17 Manas Sharma & Simon Scarr, How migrant worker outbreaks supercharged 19 coronavirus spread in Singapore, Reuters (May 22, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-singapore-clusters/how- 20 migrant-worker-outbreaks-supercharged-coronavirus-spread-in-singapore- idUSKBN22Y29U. 21 18 Leung supra note 16 (“‘If we forget marginalized communities, if we forget the poor, the homeless, the incarcerated… we are going to continue to see outbreaks,’ 22 says Gavin Yamey, Associate Director for Policy at the Duke Global Health 23 Institute. ‘This will continue to fuel our epidemic.’”). 19Heather Venkat et al., Notes from the Field: Measles Outbreak at a United States 24 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facility- Arizona, May-June 2016, MMWR Mrob. Mortal Wkly Rep. 66(20): 543-544 (May 26, 2017), 25 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5657873/; see also Jessica Leung, et al., 1617. Mumps in Detention Facilities that House Detained Migrants- United 26 States, September 2018-April 2019, Open Forum Infect. Dis. 6(Suppl. 2): S589- S590 (Oct. 23, 2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810009/; 27 see also Mark A. Travassos, The Threat of Outbreaks in US Border Patrol Detainment Centers, Pediatrics 144 (2) e20190206 (Aug. 2019), 28 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/144/2/e20190206?casa_token=0f24q 11 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:4266

1 spread rapidly. This will also likely require significant resources from 2 nearby hospitals. Because of the inevitable circulation between jails in 3 particular at the outside community, both in terms of new arrests but also 4 staff and vendors coming and going, there is a high risk that any future wave 5 will be re-introduced into these facilities—as has been the case during the 6 current pandemic—and that an outbreak within a facility will then serve as a 7 springboard for further spread to the outside community. Furthermore, so 8 long as agencies like ICE continue to transfer individuals between facilities 9 for the purpose of deportation or otherwise, this will increase the risk of 10 transmission between facilities, meaning that COVID-19 could be re- 11 introduced even to a jail in a community that has significantly reduced 20 12 community spread. 13 23. For this last reason, even if a detention center were able to successfully 14 eliminate an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in a facility, increasing the 15 population of that facility—particularly by returning individuals at high risk 16 of COVID-19—poses substantial risks both to those individuals and society 17 at large. Once again, by the time a facility realizes there are new cases, it 18 may well be too late to prevent a full-blown outbreak. 19 24. Reducing these risks requires decreasing jail, prison, and ICE 20 populations, particularly when it comes to individuals at highest risk 21 from COVID-19. To mitigate all three of the major risks identified above— 22 SARS-CoV-2 remaining longer in detention settings, detention settings 23 virGmgAAAAA%3A_2oxsaw5zR1OTMAfMi5ckUicZcjOuYhgJKGMIsK- 24 SPjk6db_cL5xctx0mFz7XMi-CfEK8CrpWLIG 20 See, e.g., Dianne Solis, Virus began spreading in Texas detention center as 25 positive immigrants were quickly transferred in from Northeast, Dallas Morning News (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public- 26 health/2020/04/27/virus-began-spreading-in-texas-detention-center-as-positive- immigrants-were-quickly-transferred-in-from-northeast/ (describing how transfer 27 of around 20 individuals from ICE detention in one facility likely triggered rapid 28 spread of COVID-19 in another facility). 12 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:4267

1 serving as reservoirs of the virus, and detention settings serving as 2 accelerants or institutional amplifiers of SSEs—it will be crucial to avoid 3 increasing the population of detention centers, especially when it comes to 4 individuals at high risk of COVID-19. Such individuals are likelier to get 5 sick, infect others, and suffer serious consequences requiring more medical 6 care. From a public health perspective, keeping these individuals out of ICE 7 detention, jails, and prisons while the risk of COVID-19 remains present will 8 reduce the danger to them, their families, facility staff, and the community at 9 large. 10 ICE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE 11 25. It is my professional judgment that the fairly ad hoc and disorganized system 12 ICE has developed in response to COVID-19, described primarily in the 13 declarations of Tae Johnson and Dr. Ada Rivera, is insufficient to protect 14 people in ICE’s custody. And, as a result of the failures of that system, 15 conditions on the ground in detention centers like Etowah, described in the 16 declaration of Bryan S. Pitman, continue to put people at risk. 17 26. There are two systemwide points that are particularly concerning to me. 18 First, Mr. Johnson’s declaration indicates a critical lack of universal, 19 ongoing testing for people who are asymptomatic. Johnson indicates that 20 such testing throughout ICE’s system is quite restricted. 21 27. The research increasingly indicates that if you’re in a congregate setting— 22 whether it’s a prison, jail, college/university, etc.—frequent testing of 23 asymptomatic peoples is essential. In the university context, Paltiel and Walensky suggest that unless there is frequent testing of asymptomatics (2-3 24 25 26 27 28 13 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:4268

1 times a week) an outbreak is highly possible.21 Other research also discusses 2 the need for asymptomatic testing in the specific context of jails.22 3 28. The other point of utmost concern for me is ICE’s apparent admission (in 4 Dr. Rivera and Mr. Johnson’s declarations) that they are using solitary 5 confinement on a widespread basis as an attempt at infection control. Use of 6 segregation units, where the conditions are tantamount to solitary 7 confinement, is unethical. ICE should end this practice immediately.23 8 29. Finally, conditions on the ground at Etowah County Detention Center, 9 described in the declaration of Bryan S. Pitman, also give me cause for 10 concern. First, Officer Pitman does not describe much in the way of 11 educational efforts or information sharing with the detained population. This 12 is notably absent in his discussion of the provision of masks to detained people, which does not appear to be accompanied by any instructions on 13 how to use the mask, how it works, why it is important, etc. This could both 14 lead to user error, reducing the mask’s efficiency, a lack of understanding of 15 the importance of wearing it, or even a false sense of security that the mask 16 without other efforts will be sufficient to stave off infection.24 17 18 19 20 21 A. David Paltiel et al., COVID-19 Screening Strategies That Permit the Safe Re- 21 Opening of College Campuses, MedRxiv (July 7, 2020)https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.06.20147702v1 22 22 Giovanni S. P. Malloy, et al. The Effectiveness of Intervention to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in a Large Urban Jail, MedRxiv (2020) 23 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/06/18/2020.06.16.20133280. 24 full.pdf 23 David Cloud et al., The Ethical Use of Medical Isolation- Not Solitary 25 Confinement- to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in Correctional Settings, Amend (Apr. 9, 2020), https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Medical-Isolation- 26 vs-Solitary_Amend.pdf 24 Wesley Yeung, et al., Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among 27 the General Public in Singapore, Jama Network (May 20, 2020), 28 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766070 14 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:4269

1 30. Similarly, Officer Pitman omits certain critical aspects in the cleaning 2 regime he describes. He describes in general terms that cleaning is done 3 regularly, and also mentions an aerosolized disinfectant being pumped into 4 common areas. He does not, however, mention any details on cleaning of 5 critical touch points like telephone receivers and keypads, door handles, sink 6 handles, or other commonly-touched areas of the common space that could 7 be points of transmission of infection. He also makes no mention of 8 educating the detained people on the importance of hygiene should they 9 come in contact with those areas. 10 CONCLUSION 11 31. Even in states like New Jersey and New York that have successfully 12 mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2, there is a high risk of at least one 13 second wave of infections. This is due to the ongoing outbreaks across the 14 country, the lack of effective measures by which states could quarantine 15 other states, the potential seasonality of SARS-CoV-2, the possibility of loss 16 of immunity over time, and reopening decision that will increase avenues for 17 transmission. 18 32. It is my professional opinion that from a public health perspective, continued 19 detention of individuals who are at high risk from COVID-19 will 20 significantly increase health risks to them, others in the facility, the staff, and 21 the surrounding community. Crucially, this is true even under the following 22 circumstances: (1) as a society we have bent the curve; (2) governments are 23 engaged in staggered re-opening; and (3) there are no more COVID-19 cases 24 in the facility.

25 33. There is a high risk that the pandemic will arrive in waves, each of which 26 will last far longer in jails and prisons. Maintaining the number of high-risk 27 individuals in these settings will serve as both a potential trigger and 28 15 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:4270

1 accelerant for each wave as people cycle in and out of these facilities 2 harboring SARS-CoV-2. Jails and prisons are kindling for the fires of 3 epidemics. They are the perfect place for outbreaks to take hold, take off, 4 and spread. We have seen it with tuberculosis, HIV and other infections in 5 the context of prisons and jails around the world, and we are now seeing it 6 with SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. 7 34. A single weak link in the chain can lead to a resurgence of COVID-19 in the 8 broader community, as has happened elsewhere, and thus to stop the SARS- 9 CoV-2 epidemic, we have to stop it in prisons and jails. A necessary 10 component of this is reducing the population of these facilities and keeping 11 it reduced, particularly when it comes to people most vulnerable to COVID- 12 19. Given that COVID-19 infections can often be asymptomatic for a period 13 of time and in the absence of regular, reliable, comprehensive testing, by the 14 time a jail or prison realizes there are new cases it will likely already be too 15 late to prevent a full-blown outbreak in the facility and to prevent it from 16 spreading to the community at large—precisely what we have already seen 17 with this first wave. For this reason, from a public health perspective, it is 18 crucial to err on the side of caution when determining whether to re-detain someone. 19 20 35. I am concerned that, based on the evidence I have reviewed, ICE is still 21 taking inadequate precautions to keep people in its custody safe. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23

24 July 13, 2020 25 26 New Haven, Connecticut Gregg Gonsalves 27 28 16 Fraihat v. ICE, Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) Declaration of Gregg Gonsalves

Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:4271

EXHIBIT A

17 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:4272 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

Date of Revision: 4 May 2020

Name: Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

Appointment: Assistant Professor with Term in the Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Traditional Track

Term: Primary Appointment: July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023

School: Yale University School of Medicine and the Graduate School

Education: B.S. (with distinction) Yale College (Biology) 2011 M.Phil. Yale School of Public Health 2015 Ph.D. Yale School of Public Health 2017

Career/Academic Appointments:

2018- Affiliated Faculty, Yale Program in Addiction Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 2017- Affiliated Faculty, Public Health Modeling Concentration, Yale School of Public Health New Haven, CT 2017- Assistant Professor, Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 2017- Associate Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT 2017- Affiliated Faculty, Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 2017- Affiliated Faculty, Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, Yale University, New Haven, CT 2012- Research Scholar in Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT 2012-2017 Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT 2011-2012 Post-Graduate Research Fellow, Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 2011-2012 Research Scholar, University of Cape Town, Centre for Social Science Research, Cape Town, South Africa 2011-2012 Fellow, Harvard Medical School, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Boston, MA 2010 Summer Research Associate, l’unité Régulation des infections rétrovirales, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

Administrative Positions:

2017- Co-Faculty Director, Global Health Studies, Yale College, New Haven, CT 2016- Co-Director, Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency, Yale Law School Yale School of Public Health and Yale Medical School, New Haven, CT 2012- Co-Director, Global Health Justice Partnership, Yale Law School and Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 2006-2008 Coordinator, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, Cape Town, South Africa

Exhibit A 18 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:4273 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. 2000-2006 Director of Treatment and Prevention Advocacy, Public Policy Department, Gay Men’s Health Crisis, New York, NY 1991-2000 Co-Founder and Policy Director, Treatment Action Group, New York, NY

Professional Honors & Recognition:

International/National/Regional

2018: MacArthur Fellow, MacArthur Foundation 2014: Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation Essay Contest 2011: William R. Belknap Prize for Excellence in Biology (the highest honor bestowed on undergraduates in the department and awarded to one student each year), Yale College 2011: Open Society Foundations Fellowship 2010: Alan S. Tetelman 1958 Fellowship for International Research in the Sciences, Yale College 2008: John M. Lloyd Foundation Leadership Award 2001: Treatment Action Group Research in Action Award

Grant History:

Current Grants

Agency: MacArthur Foundation I.D# N/A Title: MacArthur Fellowship P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: N/A (unrestricted award for personal use) Direct costs for project period: $625,000 Project period: 1/1/2019-12/31/2023

Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse I.D.# DP2DA49282-01 Title: Avenir Award Program for Research on Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS “Novel Adaptive Approaches to Predicting and Responding to Outbreaks of Overdose, HIV and HCV Among People Who Use Drugs” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 25% (DP2 awards have no pre-specified budget, but require at least 25% effort) Direct costs for project period: $1,500,000 Total costs for project period: $2,512,500 Project period: 07/01/2019-05/31/2024

Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse I.D.# R37DA15612-16 Title: “Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS & Drug Abuse” P.I.: Douglas Owens, Stanford; Yale Subaward PI: David Paltiel Percent effort: 25% Direct costs per year: $60,141 (Yale Subaward Only; Current Year Direct)

Exhibit A 19 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:4274 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. Total costs for project period: $3,942,000 Project period: 09/25/2002 – 01/31/2023

Agency: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases I.D.# 5R01AI042006-22 Title: “Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing HIV Complications” (CEPAC-US) P.I.: Kenneth Freedberg, Massachusetts General Hospital; Yale Subaward PI: David Paltiel Percent effort: 20% Direct costs per year: $28,198 (Yale Subaward Only; Current Year Direct) Project Period: 04/01/1998 – 07/31/2020

Past Grants

Agency: National Institute of Mental Health I.D.# 5R01MH105203-04 Title: “Novel Approaches to the Design and Evaluation of Combination HIV Prevention” P.I.: David Paltiel Percent effort: 5% Direct costs per year: $564,682 Total costs for project period: $3,309,826 Project period: 06/25/2014 – 02/28/2020

Agency: Laura and John Arnold Foundation I.D.# Research Integrity Initiative Grant Title: “Yale Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves (co-P.I. with Amy Kapczynski, J.D. and Joseph Ross, M.D.) Percent effort: 5% Direct costs per year: $841,619 Total costs for project period: $3,023,059 Project period: 07/01/2016 – 07/1/2019

Agency: Levi-Strauss Foundation I.D. # R13002 Title: “Yale Global Health Justice Partnership Summer Fellowship Program P.I.: Alice Miller, JD Percent effort: 1.54% Direct costs per year: $50,000 Total costs for project period: $100,000 Project Period: 05/1/2015-4/30/2017

Agency: Public Health Services and Systems Research (PHSSR)/University of Kentucky Research Foundation I.D.# Fellowship Title: “PHSSR Pre-doctoral Scholar in Public Health Delivery” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 100%

Exhibit A 20 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:4275 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. Total costs for project period: $24,472 Project period: 10/1/2014 – 9/1/2015

Agency: Open Society Foundations I.D.# Fellowship Title: “Open Society Fellowship” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 100% Total costs for project period: $150,000 Project period: 07/1/2011 – 07/1/2012

Agency: John M. Lloyd Foundation I.D.# Fellowship Title: “AIDS Leadership Award” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 100% Total costs for project period: $100,000 Project period: 09/1/2008 – 09/1/2009

Other Grant History (aggregate figures for programs that I managed and grant funding when working for non-governmental organizations outside of academia):

Agency: The Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS; Public Welfare Foundation; John M. Lloyd Foundation; Swedish International Development Agency; UK Department for International Development; Royal Dutch Netherlands Embassy; IrishAID; HIVOS Foundation; Stephen Lewis Foundation I.D. # Program Budget Title: “AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa Treatment Literacy and Advocacy Program” P.I.: Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 100% Total costs for project period: $1,150,000 Project period: 06/1/2006 – 06/1/2008

Agency: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Doris Duke Charitable Trust; Sainsbury Family Trusts/Monument Trust I.D. # Program Budget Title: “The CD4 Initiative at Imperial College (UK)” P.I. Gregg S. Gonsalves (founder/board chair) Hans-Georg Batz, Ph.D. (project director) Percent effort: 25% Total costs for project period: $9,000,000 Project period: 06/1/2005 – 03/1/2010

Agency: John M. Lloyd Foundation; Overbrook Foundation; New York Community Trust; Rockefeller Foundation; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Open Society Foundations; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Merck; Broadway Cares--Equity Fights AIDS; National Institutes of Health; American Foundation for AIDS Research; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation I.D. # Program Budget Title: “Gay Men’s Health Crisis Treatment and Prevention Advocacy Program”

Exhibit A 21 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:4276 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. P.I. Gregg S. Gonsalves Percent effort: 100% Total costs for project period: $1,150,000 Project Period: 6/1/2000-6/1/2006

Agency: John M. Lloyd Foundation; Overbrook Foundation; New York Community Trust; Aaron Diamond Foundation; Royal S. Marks Foundation, Michael Palm Foundation, American Foundation for AIDS Research I.D. # Program Budget Title: “Treatment Action Group Program Budget” P.I. Gregg S. Gonsalves (co P.I. with Mark Harrington) Percent effort: 100% Total costs for project period: $3,120,000 Project Period: 1/1/1993-6/1/2000

Invited Speaking Engagements, Presentations, Symposia & Workshops:

International/National

2020 Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, “An Adaptive Approach to Locating Mobile HIV Testing Services”

International Conference on Health Policy Statistics, San Diego, CA, “Using Risk Maps to Pre- Deploy Services for Overdose, HIV and Hepatitis C Among People Who Inject Drugs”

New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, "Non-Trial Preapproval Access to Investigational Medical Products: Lessons Learned and Practical Advice Moving Forward"

2019 New England AIDS Education and Training Center, Boston, MA, “Applying 35 Years of HIV Work to the Substance Use Epidemic”

HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, NY, “Causal Inference and Structural Interventions for HIV Prevention” as part of symposium on “Staying at Zero: The Role of Social Science in Ending the HIV Epidemic”

Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, MA, “Annual Lecture in Health Policy and Law”

Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, “We Will Be Citizens: From AIDS Activism to Mobilizing for Global Health Justice”

Providence/Boston Center for AIDS Research Annual Research Forum, Brown University, Providence RI, “Closing Plenary: We Will Be Citizens: From AIDS Activism to Mobilizing for Global Health Justice”

Decolonizing Global Health Conference, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, “Closing Plenary - Solidarity-oriented approaches: subverting the status quo of global health”

Exhibit A 22 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:4277 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. Special Lecture Series on Global Public Health, “We Will Be Citizens: From AIDS Activism to Mobilizing for Global Health Justice,” University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

2018 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “30th Anniversary of Seize Control of the FDA: Protest, Crisis, and Public Health”

2016 Department of Health Policy, Management, and Behavior, University at Albany, School of Public Health, Albany, NY, “Sanitation and Sexual Violence in an Urban Township in Cape Town, South Africa: A Modeling Study”

Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, Boston, MA, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “Entrepreneurship in Bridging Evidence, Policy and Practice: A Conversation”

European Public Health Alliance, Brussels, Belgium, The push towards accelerated market approvals: What does it mean for drug development, patient safety and access to medicines in Europe?, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “Our agenda - What kind of market access system do we want in Europe?”

Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, MA, Individual Choice v. Collective Destiny: the Future of Public Health, Panel Presentation and Discussion, "We Will Be Citizens: On Global Health Justice”

2015 Yale Law School, Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women’s Rights, “In and out of the ivory tower: How can Northern Universities Advance Global Health Justice”

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bethesda, MD, Clinical Trial Designs for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “The Challenges of Developing New Treatments for Life-Threatening Diseases: From HIV-AIDS to EVD”

National Physicians Alliance, Washington, DC, Truth to Power: Alliance for the Public Good, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “Incentivizing Innovation: How Do We Ensure Safe, Effective Drugs and Devices?”

Keeneland Public Health Services and Systems Research Conference, Lexington, KY, Poster Presentation, “Go With the Flow: Understanding the Temporal Dynamics of the HIV Continuum of Care or the HIV Treatment Cascade”

2008 The XVII International AIDS Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, Plenary Session, “Scaling Up Antiretroviral Therapy and the Struggle for Comprehensive Primary Care”

2007 The 18th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm, Warsaw, Poland, Plenary Session, “A Report from the Ghost of Christmas Past”

2006 The XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Canada, Plenary Session, “25 years of AIDS: Looking Back, Looking Forward”

Exhibit A 23 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:4278 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. Priorities in AIDS Care and Treatment Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, Plenary Session, “Reason, Rationality and Madness and the AIDS Epidemic”

2004 The XV International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “How to Lose the War on AIDS”

The XV International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, Panel Presentation and Discussion, “The Mysteries of Community Capital”

Oral presentations on AIDS research and treatment at meetings, including the International Congress on Drug Therapy for HIV Infection; International Conference on AIDS; the Keystone Symposium on HIV Pathogenesis; The White House Conference on AIDS; National Task Force on AIDS Drug Development; European AIDS Treatment Group Eastern States Conference; Médecins Sans Frontières’ meeting on How to Simplify and Adapt ARV Combination Therapies and Monitoring for Use in Low and Middle Income Countries; WHO International Consultative Meeting on HIV/AIDS Antiretroviral Therapy; WHO Informal Consultation on Harmonization of Strategies for HIV/AIDS Diagnostic Support.

Other presentations: Harvard College, Yale College, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, Institut Pasteur, Phillips Andover Academy, Columbia University, Stetson University, Eurasia Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Central European University.

Professional Service:

Peer Review Groups/Grant Study Sections

2000-2004 Member, American Foundation for AIDS Research, Basic Research Peer Review Committee 2003 Member, Expert Review Panel, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s Innovation in Clinical Research Award on Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Therapeutic Monitoring of AIDS in Resource-Poor Countries 1998 Member, Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel for the Centers for AIDS Research, NIH/NIAID 1996 Member, Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel for the AIDS Clinical Trials Group, NIH/NIAID 1996 Member, Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel for the California Centers for AIDS Research, California State AIDS Research Program

Journal Service

Reviewer: British Medical Journal; PLoS Medicine; Journal of Urban Health; Globalization and Health; Health Affairs; Milbank Quarterly; JAMA Internal Medicine.

Advisory Bodies for Federal and International Agencies and Foundations

2019-2020 Scientific Programme Committee, Track C: Epidemiology and Prevention Research, 23rd International AIDS Conference 2019 Member, NIH Workshop on HIV-Associated Comorbidities, Syndemics Working Group 2017-2018 Member, Office of AIDS Research Ad Hoc Cost-Sharing Task Force, NIH

Exhibit A 24 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:4279 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. 2017-2018 Member, Committee on Return of Individual-Specific Research Results Generated in Research Laboratories, National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2001-2006 Member, Panel on Clinical Practices for the Treatment of HIV (convened by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation) 2005-2006 Member, UNAIDS/UK Department for International Development Global Steering Committee on Universal Access to HIV Treatment, Care and Prevention 2000-2002 Member, Office of AIDS Research International Research Planning Group, NIH 1998-2002 Member, Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council, NIH 2002 Member, World Health Organization Planning Committee for Development of an International Plan of Action for Scale-Up of Antiretroviral Therapy 2001 Member, World Health Organization Antiretroviral Treatment Working Group 2000 Member, Search Committee for the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, NIH 1998 Member, Search Committee for the Director of the Office of AIDS Research, NIH 1995-1996 Member, Food and Drug Administration, Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee 1995-1996 Member, NIH AIDS Research Program Evaluation Working Group 1995-1996 Member, NIH Etiology and Pathogenesis Area Review Panel

Meeting Planning/Participation

2017 Chair, Yale Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency and European Public Health Alliance, Conference on Ensuring Safety, Efficacy and Access to Medical Products in the Age of Global Deregulation 2012 Co-Chair, Yale Global Health Justice Partnership Meeting on Mining, Tuberculosis and Silicosis in Southern Africa 2008 Co-Chair, Médecins Sans Frontières, Treatment Action Group, AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa Meeting on Development of Point-of-Care Assays for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis 2008 Co-Chair, Treatment Action Campaign and AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa Meeting on Mines, Tuberculosis and Southern Africa 2007 Co-Chair, Treatment Action Campaign and AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa Meeting on Emergency Southern African Advocacy Summit on TB and HIV 2006 Chair, GMHC Forum on Structural Factors Driving Risk of HIV Transmission Among Gay Men and Communities of Color: Drug Use, Depression, Violence, Incarceration 2006 Chair, GMHC Conference on Moving towards Universal Access: Identifying Public Policies for Scaling Up AIDS Treatment and Strengthening Health Systems in Developing Countries 2005 Chair, GHMC and Human Rights Watch Symposium on HIV Testing and Human Rights 2001 Co-Chair, GMHC/Project Inform Workshop on Diagnostic and Monitoring Tools for the Management of Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-Poor Settings 2000 Co-Chair, Treatment Action Group American Foundation for AIDS Research Workshop on New Viral and Cellular Targets for Antiretroviral Therapy 1997-1998 Member, Scientific Planning Committee, XII International Conference on AIDS 1996 Co-Chair, Treatment Action Group American Foundation for AIDS Research Workshop on Cellular and Systemic Reservoirs for HIV in Patients on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy 1993 Member, Planning Committee, NIH Conference on Immunologic and Host Genetic Resistance to HIV Infection and Disease

Exhibit A 25 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:4280 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

Yale School of Public Health Service

2018- Co-Chair, Epidemiology of Microbial Disease Seminar Committee, Yale School of Public Health 2018- Member, Wilbur Downs Fellowship Committee, Yale School of Public Health 2017 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health

Public Service

2017- Member, Board of Directors, CitySeed, New Haven, CT 2007- Chair, Board of Directors, International Treatment Preparedness Coalition 2007-2013 Member, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation/Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Global HIV Prevention Working Group 2000-2010 Chair, The CD4 Initiative at Imperial College, UK 2000-2005 Member, Board of Directors, Alliance for Microbicide Development 1989-1992 Member, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power

Bibliography:

Peer Reviewed Original Research

1. Li ZR, Xie E, Crawford FW, Warren JL, McConnell K, Copple JT, Johnson T, Gonsalves GS, Suspected Heroin-Related Overdose Incidents in Cincinnati, Ohio: A Spatiotemporal Analysis, PLoS Med 2019; 16(11): e1002956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002956

2. Egilman AC, Wallach JD, Dhruva SS, Gonsalves GS, Ross JS. Medicare Spending on Drugs and Biologics Not Recommended for Coverage by International Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2019:1-3.

3. Gonsalves GS, Crawford FW, Dynamics of the HIV Outbreak and Response in Scott County, Indiana, 2011-2015. Lancet HIV. 2018.

4. Wallach JD, Ciani O, Pease AM, Gonsalves GS, Krumholz HM, Taylor RS, Ross JS. Comparison of Treatment Effect Sizes from Pivotal and Post-Approval Trials of Novel Therapeutics Approved by the FDA on the Basis of Surrogate Markers of Disease: a Meta- epidemiological study. BMC Medicine. 2018 Mar;16(1):45.

5. Gonsalves GS, Copple JT, Johnson T, Paltiel AD, Warren JL. Bayesian Adaptive Algorithms for Locating HIV Mobile Testing Services. BMC Medicine. 2018; 16(1):155.

6. Gonsalves GS, Crawford FW, Cleary PD, Kaplan EH, Paltiel AD. An Adaptive Approach to Locating Mobile HIV Testing Services. Medical Decision Making. 2018; 38(2): 262-272.

7. Ehrlich R, Montgomery A, Akugizibwe P, Gonsalves G. Public health implications of changing patterns of recruitment into the South African mining industry, 1973–2012: a database analysis. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jan; 18(1): 93.

8. Wallach JD, Gonsalves GS, Ross JS, Research, Regulatory and Clinical Decision-Making: The

Exhibit A 26 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:4281 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D. Importance of Scientific Integrity, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018 Jan 1;93: 88-93.

9. Gonsalves GS, Paltiel AD, Cleary PD, Gill MJ, Kitahata MM, Rebeiro PF, Silverberg MJ, Horberg MA, Irene Hall HI, Abraham AG, Kaplan EH, A Flow-Based Model of the HIV Care Continuum in the United States. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2017;75(5):548-53.

10. Gopal A, Wallach J, Aminawung J, Gonsalves G, Dal-Re R, Miller J, Ross J. Adherence to ICMJE Prospective Registration Policy and Implications for Endpoint Integrity: A Cross Sectional Analysis of Trials Published in High-Impact Specialty Society Journals, PLOS Medicine. 2017: 19(1): 448.

11. Walensky RP, Borre ED, Bekker LG, Hyle EP, Gonsalves GS, Wood R, Eholie SP, Weinstein MC, Freedberg KA, Paltiel AD. Do Less Harm: Evaluating HIV Programmatic Alternatives in Response to Cutbacks in Foreign Aid. Annals Internal Med. 2017 Aug 29.

12. Lewnard JA, Antillón M, Gonsalves G, Miller AM, Ko AI, Pitzer VE. Strategies to prevent cholera introduction during international personnel deployments: a computational modeling analysis based on the 2010 Haiti outbreak. PLoS Med. 2016;13(1):e1001947.

13. Beckman AL, Bilinski A, Boyko R, Camp GM, Wall AT, Lim JK, Wang E, Bruce RD, Gonsalves GS. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infections in state correctional facilities in the United States: A national survey of prison commissioners. Health Affairs. 2016 Oct 1;35(10):1893-901.

14. Lewnard JA, Gonsalves G, Ko AI. Low risk for international Zika virus spread due to the 2016 Olympics in Brazil. Ann Intern Med 2016; published online July 26. doi:10.7326/M16-1628.

15. Gonsalves GS, Kaplan EH, Paltiel AD. Reducing sexual violence by increasing the supply of toilets in Khayelitsha, South Africa: a mathematical model. PLoS one. 2015;10(4):e0122244.

16. Peluso MJ, Seavey B, Gonsalves G, Friedland G. An inter-professional “advocacy and activism in global health”: module for the training of physician-advocates. Global Health Promotion. 2013;20(2):70–3.

17. Basu S, Stuckler D, Gonsalves G, Lurie M. The production of consumption: addressing the impact of mineral mining on tuberculosis in southern Africa. Globalization and Health. 2009;5(1):1.

Pre-prints

18. Bilinski A, Birger R, Burn S, Chitwood M, Clarke-Deelder E, Copple T, Eaton J, Ehrlich H, Erlendsdottir M, Eshghi S, Farid M, Fitzpatrick M, Giardina J, Gonsalves G, Hsieh Y, Iloglu S, Kao Y, MacKay E, Menzies N, Mulaney B, Paltiel D, Perniciaro S, Phillips M, Rich K, Salomon J, Sherak R, Shioda K, Swartwood N, Testa C, Thornhill T, White E, Williamson A, York A, Zhu J, Zhu L. Defining high-value information for COVID-19 decision-making. medRxiv. 2020

19. Fenichel EP, Berry K, Bayham J, Gonsalves G. A cell phone data driven time use analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic. medRxiv. 2020

Exhibit A 27 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:4282 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

Invited Editorials and Commentaries

20. Luo J, Gonsalves G, Kapczynski A. Treatments don’t work if we can’t afford them: the global need for open and equitable access to remdesivir. BMJ Blog. 3 June 2020.

21. Yamey G, Gonsalves G. Donald Trump: a political determinant of covid-19. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2020 Apr 24;369:m1643.

22. Krieger N, Gonsalves G, Bassett MT, Hanage w, Krumholz HM. The fierce urgency of now: closing glaring gaps in US surveillance data on COVID-19. Health Affairs Blog. 14 April 2020.

23. Oladeru OT, Beckman A, Gonsalves G. What COVID-19 Means for America’s Incarcerated Population — And How to Ensure It’s Not Left Behind. Health Affairs Blog. 10 March 2020.

24. Luo J, Gonsalves G, Greene J. Insulin for all: treatment activism and the global diabetes crisis. Lancet (London, England). 2019 May 25;393(10186):2116.

25. Gonsalves G, Zuckerman D. Commentary: Will 20th century patient safeguards be reversed in the 21st century? BMJ. 2015;350:h1500.

26. Gonsalves G, Staley P. Panic, paranoia, and public health—the AIDS epidemic’s lessons for Ebola. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(25):2348–9.

27. El-Sadr WM, Gonsalves G, Mugyenyi P. No Need for Apologies. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2011; 57: S68–71.

28. Keshavjee S, Harrington M, Gonsalves G, Chesire L, Farmer PE. Time for zero deaths from tuberculosis. The Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1449–50.

29. Collins S, Baker BK, Gonsalves G, Gomes M. The dangers of attacking disease specific programmes for developing countries. British Medical Journal.; 2007 Sep 29;335(7621):646.

Chapters, Books, and Reviews

30. Ooms G, Hammonds R, Gonsalves G. The struggle against HIV/AIDS: rights, economics, and global responsibilities. The Millennium Development Goals and human rights: past, present and future. Cambridge University Press; 2013.

31. Bass E, Gonsalves G, Katana M. Advocacy, activism, community and the AIDS response in Africa. In: Public Health Aspects of HIV/AIDS in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Springer; 2008, p. 151–70.

Case Reports, Technical Notes, Letters, Other Scholarly Work

32. Gonsalves G, Kapczynski A. The New Politics of Care. Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum; 2020.

33. Gonsalves G, Kapczynski A. Markets V. Lives. Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum;

Exhibit A 28 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:4283 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

2020.

34. Kapczynski A, Gonsalves G. Alone Against the Virus. Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum; 2020.

35. Broach S, Petrone M, Ryan J, Sivaram A, Gonsalves, G. Reservoirs of Injustice: How Incarceration for Drug-Related Offenses Fuels the Spread of Tuberculosis in Brazil, Global Health Justice Partnership Report, Yale Law School/Yale School of Public Health. 2019.

36. Heydari S, Kembabazi A, Monahan C, Ragins K, Gonsalves G. Ending an Epidemic: Overcoming the Barriers to an HCV-Free Future, Global Health Justice Partnership Report, Yale Law School/Yale School of Public Health. 2015.

37. Batman S, Boyko R, Kalu E, Roth E, Goldberg RC, Gonzalez DJX, Gonsalves G. Fear, Politics, and Ebola: How Quarantines Hurt the Fight Against Ebola and Violate the Constitution. Global Health Justice Partnership Report, Yale Law School/Yale School of Public Health. 2015.

38. Boyko R, Goldberg RC, Darby S, Milin Z, Gonsalves G. Fulfilling Broken Promises: Reforming the Century-Old Compensation System for Occupational Lung Disease in the South African Mining Sector. Global Health Justice Partnership Report, Yale Law School/Yale School of Public Health. 2013.

39. Nattrass N, Gonsalves G. AIDS funds: undervalued. Science. 2010;330(6001):174–5.

40. Nattrass N, Gonsalves G. Economics and the backlash against AIDS-specific funding. Working Paper of the Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town; 2009.

41. Gonsalves G. Misreading the Writing on the Wall, British Medical Journal. 2008 May; 9.

42. Gonsalves G. Next steps on ART. Nature Medicine. 2002;8(7):644–644.

43. Batz H-G, Guillerm M, Gonsalves G. Scaling up antiretroviral treatment in resource-poor settings. The Lancet. 2006;368(9534):445.

Editorials and Publications for the General Public

44. Gonsalves G. The Pandemic is a Threat. The President Is Worse. The Nation, June 4, 2020.

45. Gonsalves G. Solidarity Is Our Silver Linings Pandemic Playbook. The Nation, May 28, 2020.

46. Gonsalves G. Reopening: A Chronicle of Needless Deaths Foretold. The Nation, May 4, 2020.

47. Gonsalves G. Beating Covid-19 Will Take Coordination, Experimentation, and Leadership. The Nation, April 23, 2020.

48. Gonsalves G. Testing. Testing. 1-2-3 Testing. The Nation, April 16, 2020.

49. Gonsalves G. The Science Is Clear on How to Beat This Pandemic. The Nation, April 9, 2020.

Exhibit A 29 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207-4 Filed 07/13/20 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:4284 Gregg S. Gonsalves, Ph.D.

50. Gonsalves G. Gregg Gonsalves Blends Activism and Science (an interview with Claudia Dreifus), New York Times, April 8, 2019.

51. Gonsalves G. The U.S. really could end AIDS — if the Trump administration gets out of the way. Washington Post, February 8, 2019.

52. Gonsalves G. This is not a cure for my HIV. New York Times, March 9, 2019.

53. Gonsalves G, Harrington M, Kessler DA. Don’t Weaken the FDA Drug Approval Process. New York Times. June 11, 2015.

54. Gonsalves G. Stop Playing Cowboy on Ebola. Foreign Policy. October 28, 2014.

55. Gonsalves G. “Am I Safe?” is the Wrong Ebola Question to Ask. Quartz. October 4, 2014.

Exhibit A 30