Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 420

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 413 Defendant's Motion for Relief From 4/6/2012 Order (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA,

12

et al.,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM APRIL
6, 2012 ORDER (Dkt. No. 413).

Plaintiffs,

13

Case No.: 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC)

v.

14
15

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

16

et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Relief from this Court’s April 6,

20

2012 Order finding waiver of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs’ (“DVA”) assertion of the

21

deliberative process privilege with respect to certain documents. (Dkt. No. 413). On April

22

23, 2012, District Court Judge Wilken referred the motion to the undersigned Judge because

23

Defendants’ motion raises arguments not previously made to the Court. Having reviewed the

24

motion and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, the Court concludes that oral argument is not

25

necessary, see L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for relief.

26

DISCUSSION

27

Following the close of fact discovery, on March 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to

28

compel regarding several outstanding categories of discovery. (Dkt. No. 404). One of the

categories was a challenge to DVA’s production of supplemental privilege logs in January

2

and February 2012 asserting the deliberative process privilege over 705 newly disclosed

3

documents. Plaintiffs argued that DVA’s assertion of the deliberative process privilege over

4

those newly identified documents was untimely and that the privilege had been waived.1 In

5

granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in part, the Court found that DVA had waived the

6

deliberative process privilege because (1) the documents identified on the February 2012

7

privilege log were mostly from the same time period and covering the same subjects as those

8

identified on its prior October 2010 privilege log, (2) DVA had not provided any specific

9

explanation as to why these documents were not identified the first time around when DVA

10

was searching for responsive discovery, and (3) DVA had not explained why it took over a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

year to identify additional documents regarding these subjects on a privilege log and why this

12

log was not produced until after the close of discovery.
DVA’s motion for relief argues for the first time that the recently disclosed documents

13
14

were identified through broader searches that were commenced following the Court’s

15

November 2010 order adding DVA as a party to this action. DVA has submitted a

16

declaration from David Barrans, a Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the Office of General

17

Counsel for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (Dkt. No. 413-1). Mr. Barrans represents

18

that in January 2011 DVA began searches of the VA servers in the VA Central Office using

19

22 additional search terms beyond those they had used in responding to Plaintiffs’ Rule 45

20

subpoena. Further, in February 2011, DVA began searches of the “mailboxes of

21

approximately 142 current and former VA employees for documents containing any of the 38

22

search terms.” (Dkt. No. 413-1, ¶ 12). Mr. Barrans asserts that the supplemental privilege

23

log is the result of these searches and a review of more than 795,000 pages of documents over

24

the course of nine months. (Dkt. No. 413-1, ¶ 14).

25

1

26
27
28

DVA’s supplemental privilege log was served three months after this Court had undertaken
an in camera review of all but two of the documents (483 in total) over which DVA
previously asserted the deliberative process privilege. After reviewing the documents, the
Court found that with respect to approximately 50 documents either the deliberative process
privilege did not apply, or Plaintiffs had shown a sufficient substantial need for the documents
to overcome the claim of privilege.
2

Given Defendants’ representation that the documents at issue were not in fact

1
2

discovered until sometime after February 2011, the Court will reconsider its finding of

3

waiver. However, the Court notes that it is unclear why the broader searches which yielded

4

these documents were not done initially since Defendants do not dispute that these documents

5

are responsive to the Rule 45 subpoena served in July 2009.2 Further, although DVA

6

admittedly began the process of supplementing the privilege log in July 2011, DVA chose not

7

to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the privilege log until seven months later after the close of

8

fact discovery. (Dkt. No. 413-1, ¶ 14). Regardless of whether the parties had an agreement

9

that responsive documents would be produced on a rolling basis, there was nothing rolling
about DVA’s production of its privilege logs – rolling suggests that the log was produced as it

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

was created, which it was not. Finally, Defendants’ argument that there is no prejudice from

12

the belated production of the supplemental privilege log is not well-taken. The Court was

13

prejudiced.3 The Court reviewed 483 documents in November and now must review another

14

700 documents in an extremely inefficient use of judicial resources.

15

Nevertheless, given DVA’s current representations, the Court finds that the assertion

16

of privilege, while not made expeditiously, is not subject to waiver based on timeliness. As

17

with the other documents over which Defendants have asserted the deliberative process

18

privilege, the Court will review the documents in camera to determine whether the privilege

19

2

24

Indeed, it is troubling that the searches that were done in response to Plaintiffs’ Rule 45
subpoena did not come up with emails sent on the same date by the same individuals as emails
identified through the “broader searches” which preceded the February 2012 supplemental
privilege log. Compare Dkt. No. 405, Ex. F, p. 12, doc. no. 00805-00806 (a two-page email
sent on June 20, 2006 by Rosco Butler to fourteen individuals discussing “decision on medical
examination for Edgewood Arsenal veterans.”) with Dkt. No. 405, Ex. F, p. 139, doc. no.
DVA0078 003127 (a one-page email also sent on June 20, 2006 by Rosco Butler to unknown
recipients discussing “which veterans VA will qualify for VA examination with edits”).

25

3

20
21
22
23

26
27
28

Plaintiffs were also prejudiced by the belated disclosure. To the extent that the Court orders
production of some of the documents identified on the February 2012 privilege log, Plaintiffs
ability to conduct discovery will have been prejudiced by the production of those documents
after the close of discovery. However, this issue is not currently before the Court; if
necessary, the Court will consider the question of remedy following the Court’s in camera
review.
3

1

applies, and if so, whether Plaintiffs have shown a substantial need for the documents

2

sufficient to overcome the claim of privilege.
CONCLUSION

3
4

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion for Relief is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 413).

5

The Court VACATES that portion of the April 6, 2012 Order finding that DVA had waived

6

the deliberative process privilege with respect to documents identified on its February 2012

7

privilege log. DVA shall provide the Court with copies of the documents over which it

8

asserts deliberative process privilege for in camera review by May 4, 2012.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2012

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

4