San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Locke et al

Filing 411

ORDER Re Documents Submitted In Camera In Accordance with 6/21/10 Memorandum Decision 401 . Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record with documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege (1-9 and 60-63) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 06/30/10. The CD on which the sealed documents were lodged has been securely destroyed. (Coffman, Lisa)

Download PDF
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Locke et al Doc. 411 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DELTA SM E L T CONSOLID A T E D CASES SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AU T H O R I T Y , et al. v. SALAZAR, et al. STATE WA T E R CONTRACT O R S v. SALAZAR, et al. COALITIO N FOR A SUST A I N A B L E DELTA, e t al. v. UNITED STATES F I S H AND WILD L I F E SERVICE, et al. METROPOL I T A N WATER D I S T R I C T v. UNITE D STATES FIS H AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS et al. v. U N I T E D STATES FISH AND WILD L I F E SERVICE . I. INTRODUCTION A June 2 1 , 2010 Memo r a n d u m Decision and Order required Federal Def e n d a n t s to lodge thirteen doc u m e n t s under se a l (Document s 1-9 and 60-63) for th e Court's i n camera r e v i e w , to determi n e whether Federal Defen d a n t s properly asserted th e attorney-client privi l e g e a s to each doc u m e n t . June 28, 2010. Dock e t 401. Dock e t 408. The documents were l o d g e d on 1:09-CV- 1 0 5 3 OWW DLB MEMORANDUM DEC I S I O N AND ORDER RE DOCUM E N T S S U B M I T T E D FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW . UNITED STATES DISTRI C T CO U R T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. LEGAL STANDARD The Nint h Circuit re c e n t l y articulated the releva n t standard in Un i t e d States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 - 0 8 (9th Cir . 2009): "The att o r n e y - c l i e n t privilege protects confiden t i a l disclos u r e s made by a client to an attorney in order to obtain legal advice, ... as well as an attorney' s advice in response to such disclosu r e s . " [United States v.] Bau e r , 13 2 F.3d [50 4 , ] 507 [9th Cir. 1997] (quoting United States v . Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996)) ( e m p h a s i s omi t t e d ) . "The fact that a person i s a lawyer d o e s not make all communic a t i o n s with that person privileged." United S t a t e s v. Mar t i n , 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 200 2 ) (citing Chen, 99 F.3d at 1501). "Because it impedes full and free discovery of the trut h , the attor n e y - c l i e n t privilege i s strictly construed." Id. (qu o t i n g Weil v. Inv./Ind i c a t o r s , Res e a r c h & Mgmt., Inc., 64 7 F.2d 18, 24 (9th Cir . 1981)); accord United States v . Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1990). "[T]he privi l e g e stands in derogation of the publ i c ' s `right to every man's evidence' and as `an o b s t a c l e to t h e investigation of the truth,' [and] thus, ... `[i]t ought to be strictly confined wi t h i n the narrowest possible limits c o n s i s t e n t wi t h the logic of its principl e . ' " In re Horowitz, 482 F.2 d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 1 9 7 3 ) (citat i o n s omitted). Typically, an eight - p a r t test d e t e r m i n e s whether informat i o n is cover e d by the attorney-clie n t privileg e : (1) Wher e legal advi c e of any kind is sought (2) from a professio n a l legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3 ) the communications relating to that pur p o s e , (4) made in confiden c e (5) by th e client, (6) are at hi s instance permanently protected (7) from disclosu r e by himsel f or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. In re Gr a n d Jury Inv e s t i g a t i o n , 974 F . 2 d 10 6 8 , 1071 n. 2 (9th Cir.1 9 9 2 ) (quoting Uni t e d States v. Margo l i s (In re F i s c h e l ) , 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir . 1977)). T h e party asserting the privileg e bears the burden of proving each essentia l element. United States v. M u n o z , 233 F.3d 111 7 , 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). (Footnot e omitted). III. ANALYSIS Document s 1-9. These do c u m e n t s consist entirely of comments and edits to various por t i o n s of the 2009 NMFS Biolog i c a l Opinion ("BiOp") mad e by NOAA counsel, Melanie Ro w l a n d . These co m m e n t s were communicated to co-counsel and sta f f at NMFS. They conta i n confidential legal advice from Ms. There is n o Rowland on issues ra i s e d by the BiOp. suggesti o n that the attorney-client privile g e has been waived a s to these d o c u m e n t s , nor is there any wa y that non-priv i l e g e d portions of the material could be disclose d without di s c l o s u r e of privileged material. It is of no moment t h a t Federal Defendants conced e d in the M c I n n i s Decla r a t i o n , Doc. 227-2 ¶7, that not al l of these comment wer e incorporated into the final draft of the B i O p , as ther e is no requirement that the advice of couns e l be accepted for such advic e to b e privilege d . These do c u m e n t s were properly withheld under the attorney - c l i e n t priv i l e g e . 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Document s 60-6 3 . These do c u m e n t s cons i s t of notes from meetings between NMFS staff ( c l i e n t s ) and counsel at NOAA and emails f o l l o w i n g up on issues raised by cou n s e l . Thes e document s discuss co n f i d e n t i a l legal advice from counsel on issue s raised by the BiOp. As with Documents 1-9, there is no suggesti o n that the attorney-client privil e g e has been waived as t o these documents, nor would it be possible to segregat e non-pri v i l e g e d portions of the material from privil e g e d material. These do c u m e n t s were properly withheld under the attorney - c l i e n t priv i l e g e . IV. CONCLUSION Document s 1-9 and 60-63 were properly withh e l d under the atto r n e y - c l i e n t privilege. Plain t i f f s ' motion to suppleme n t the admin i s t r a t i v e record with these d o c u m e n t s is DENIE D . SO ORDER E D Dated: June 30, 201 0 /s/ Oliver W. Wan g e r Oliver W. Wang e r United States Distri c t Judge 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?