Grand Canyon Trust et al v. Williams et al

Filing 112

ORDER re privileged documents provided for in camera review. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/7/2014. (DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Grand Canyon Trust, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-08045-PCT-DGC

Michael Williams, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

On March 6, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify ten documents they

15

believe were improperly withheld by Defendants as privileged, and ordered Defendants

16

to submit those documents to the Court for in camera review. Doc. 108 at 4. Plaintiffs

17

identified Documents 2, 9, 14, 18, 21, 22, 29, 32, 36, and 27 on Defendants’ privilege

18

log.

19

The Court reviewed the documents in camera. Defendants claimed that eight of

20

the ten documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Docs. 9, 14, 18, 21, 22,

21

29, 32, 36.

22

Defendants’ counsel and government clients that were properly withheld.

Upon review, these documents appear to be communications between

23

Defendants claimed that Document 2 was protected by the deliberative process

24

privilege. Upon review, the Court finds that this document satisfies the Ninth Circuit’s

25

standard as a “document[] that reflect[s] advisory opinions, recommendations and

26

deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies

27

are formulated.” F.T.C. v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984).

28

Because the document is both pre-decisional and deliberative, it was properly withheld.

1

Document 37 was originally withheld as protected by the deliberative process

2

privilege and as confidential business information. Doc. 106-4 at 8. Because Defendants

3

have determined that the document is substantially similar to the final Valid Existing

4

Rights Determination already included in the record, they have agreed to release the

5

document in a redacted format, with the understanding that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not

6

challenge redactions that protect confidential business information. Doc. 110 at 7.

7
8
9

IT IS ORDERED that no additional documents need be released or submitted for
in camera review.
Dated this 7th day of April, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-