Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al
Filing
443
ORDER RE: RESPONSES TO COURTS MAY 31, 2012 ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/7/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2012)
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
12
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA,
13
et al.,
Case No.: 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC)
ORDER RE: RESPONSES TO
COURT’S MAY 31, 2012 ORDER
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
17
et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
On May 31, 2012, the Court issued an order resolving all outstanding issues regarding
21
documents that Defendant Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) had submitted for in
22
camera review. (Dkt. No. 436). The Court’s order provided Plaintiffs the opportunity to
23
challenge DVA’s characterization of certain documents as duplicates of documents over
24
which the Court had previously sustained DVA’s assertion of the deliberative process
25
privilege. Plaintiffs and Defendants have since filed several responses to the Court’s order.
26
(Dkt. Nos. 437, 438, 440, 442). Having reviewed the parties’ filings and the documents
27
submitted by Defendant for in camera review, the Court finds as follows with respect to the
28
four outstanding documents.
1
DVA078 1867 – this document is a duplicate of a document which the Court
2
previously reviewed and found was covered by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant
3
does not need to produce this document.
DVA078 2045-2055 – is a draft PowerPoint presentation entitled Chemical and
5
Biological Exposure Claims: Concern for Edgewood Arsenal Veterans, Informative Brief by
6
the Office of Policy, dated June 2, 2006. Defendant has identified document 1607-1617 as a
7
substantive duplicate of this document. Defendant previously produced document 1607-
8
1617 to Plaintiffs in a partially redacted form and has agreed to produce DVA078 2045-2055
9
with the same redactions. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have waived any challenge to the
10
redactions, however, because they did not specifically challenge the redactions in their initial
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
motion to compel. The Court finds that it is unnecessary to reach this issue because the
12
PowerPoint is also substantively similar to DVA078 09-18, a PowerPoint presentation
13
entitled Edgewood Arsenal Veteran Notification Effort, Informative Brief by the Office of
14
Policy, dated June 2, 2006, which the Court reviewed in camera and ordered Defendant to
15
produce without redactions. (Dkt. No. 423, 8:8-13). Accordingly, Defendant shall produce
16
DVA078 2045-2055 to Plaintiffs without redactions.
17
DVA078 2700-2703 – this document is a duplicate of a document which the Court
18
previously reviewed and found was covered by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant
19
does not need to produce this document.
20
DVA078 4221 – Defendant has agreed to produce this document to Plaintiffs.
21
CONCLUSION
22
Defendant shall produce the aforementioned documents to Plaintiffs by June 14,
23
2012. This Order disposes all outstanding issues regarding the Court’s in camera review of
24
documents over which Defendants asserted the deliberative process privilege. To the extent
25
that a further dispute arises regarding Defendants’ assertion of the deliberative process
26
privilege as foreshadowed in Plaintiffs’ filing (Dkt. No. 437, n. 2) the Court urges the parties
27
to consider the Court’s prior orders regarding the applicability of the deliberative process
28
privilege prior to seeking the Court’s intervention.
2
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2012
3
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?