A federal judge in California held the Department of Homeland Security in contempt for not complying with an order to search and turn over communications in federal agents’ cellphones about immigration operations in Los Angeles, according to court documents unsealed this week. The judge ordered DHS to pay $500 every day until it complies with the order to turn over imaging of the phone messages.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong wrote in her order, filed July 28, that the court had provided the federal government “plenty of time” to find messages kept on agents’ personal phones relating to 15 immigration enforcement actions under Operation At Large last year. The American Civil Liberties Union, Public Counsel and other immigration advocacy groups requested the material as part of an effort to halt federal immigration agents from using an individual’s perceived race to conduct stops.
Frimpong found that “Plaintiffs have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants violated a specific and definite order of the court” and that “They have failed to” demonstrate why they were unable to comply. She ordered DHS to pay $500 every day until it complies with the order to turn over imaging of the phone messages. DHS must also reimburse the lawsuits’ plaintiffs — five Latino workers and other advocacy organizations — for the “time and costs spent by their attorneys in getting the government to” comply.
Why it matters
Contempt findings against federal agencies are enforcement tools that directly pressure compliance with discovery obligations. The daily fine structure ($500/day) creates escalating financial and reputational cost for non-compliance, which can affect how agency counsel prioritizes e-discovery and document production in other pending litigation.
For immigration practitioners defending clients against ICE/CBP enforcement actions, this decision reinforces that courts will sanction agency discovery breaches—particularly when communications from agents’ personal devices (which are often harder to retrieve than official channels) are at issue. The fact that the judge found DHS failed to meet its burden of explaining why it couldn’t comply suggests a high bar for “good faith effort” defenses in discovery disputes.
Way forward
- If you represent plaintiffs in ICE/CBP litigation: use this order as persuasive authority when filing motions to compel production of agent communications, particularly those on personal devices used during enforcement operations.
- If you work inside DHS/DOJ: ensure your agency has robust procedures for searching and imaging agents’ personal phones when court orders require it; the cost of non-compliance is now quantified at $500/day plus attorney fee reimbursement.
- Document everything: if your agency cannot locate or produce requested communications, prepare detailed contemporaneous declarations explaining the search efforts undertaken and obstacles encountered. A general “we tried” statement will not survive a contempt motion.
- Watch the Los Angeles docket: Judge Frimpong’s standing order may signal stricter discovery oversight in similar cases in the Central District of California.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Do not rely on this summary as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Verify all cited information against the primary court order and check the source URL above. Immigration policy and court rulings can change without notice; consult current legal resources and a qualified attorney before taking any action based on this information.