Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 407

ORDER REGARDING PRIVILEGE LOG AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE re 405 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Rahinah Ibrahim, 406 Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Proposal for Eliminating/Limiting Discovery Disputes filed by Tom Ridge, Nati onal Counterterrorism Center, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Department of State, Janet Napolitano, Hilary Clinton, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Michael E. Leiter, Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security, Terrorist Screening Center, Leonard C. Boyle, Robert Mueller, Donna A. Bucella (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAHINAH IBRAHIM, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 No. C 06-00545 WHA v. ORDER REGARDING PRIVILEGE LOG AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. / 16 17 18 19 Following review of the parties’ discovery letter submissions, this dispute deserves a formal motion schedule, hearing, and record. The government is ORDERED to produce a privilege log that lists, at a minimum, each 20 responsive document for which privilege is claimed by bates number (or another unique 21 identification number), date, author(s), recipient(s), and subject. If the documents are not yet 22 numbered, they should be so that there will be a manageable way to refer to each item at issue. 23 The government must then as to each document list the specific privilege(s) it asserts. 24 For some of the materials in question, the government states that such “information 25 would be classified and should be protected in a manner consistent with Executive Order 13526” 26 (Dkt. No. 406 at 2). The Court interprets this phrase to mean that these documents are NOT 27 classified but that the government would like for them to be treated as such. The government is 28 ORDERED to state on a document by document basis which documents listed in the privilege log are actually classified. 1 The government must serve the privilege log on plaintiff’s attorneys by FEBRUARY 19 AT 2 NOON. The government may serve the privilege log on an attorney’s eyes only basis if it wishes. 3 Allowing the government to do so, however, in no way holds or agrees that a mere privilege log 4 could reveal any privileged information. 5 Once the privilege log has been served, plaintiff may file its motion to compel by 6 FEBRUARY 28 AT NOON. The government’s response thereto will be due on MARCH 14 AT 7 NOON, and any reply by MARCH 21 AT NOON. The dispute will be heard on APRIL 4 AT 8 8:00 A.M. The government is ORDERED to bring to the hearing copies of all the documents still 9 at issue because of the possibility that the Court will order an in camera review. This order should not be interpreted as a stay of discovery pending resolution of the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 motion to compel. Accordingly, per the government’s suggestion, the parties should promptly 12 negotiate an interim protective order for the disclosure of plaintiff’s current government 13 watchlist status to plaintiff’s counsel. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: February 7, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?