R. Alexander Acosta v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Filing 124

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion to Compel. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2020)

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 21

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EUGENE SCALIA,
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-02103-DMR

Re: Dkt. No. 97

12

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION,

13

Defendant.
14
15

On April 18, 2019, Plaintiff Eugene Scalia, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the

16

U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), filed a complaint against Defendant International Longshore

17

and Warehouse Union (“ILWU”) under Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and

18

Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-83 (“LMRDA”). [Docket No. 1.] DOL filed an amended

19

complaint on August 30, 2019. [Docket No. 28 (“FAC”).] DOL seeks a judgment invalidating

20

ILWU’s September 2018 election of union officers and an order that ILWU conduct a new election

21

for those positions. ILWU brings this motion to compel the Secretary to documents withheld under

22

various privileges and the work product doctrine. [Docket Nos. 97 (“Mot.”), 107 (“Reply”).] DOL

23

opposes. [Docket No. 104 (“Opp.”).] The court held a hearing on September 24, 2020.
Upon considering the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the court grants in part and denies

24
25

in part the motion to compel.

26

I.

BACKGROUND

27

The facts, claims, and defenses in this lawsuit are described in detail in the court’s November

28

18, 2020 order (Docket No. 123) and are not repeated here. ILWU moves the court to compel the

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 21

1

production of 121 documents that have been withheld or redacted by DOL. DOL responds that it

2

properly withheld the documents under the deliberative process privilege, the investigative files

3

privilege, attorney-client privilege, and/or the work product doctrine.

4

II.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO COMPEL
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides:

5
6

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Rule 26(b) is liberally interpreted to permit wide-ranging discovery of all

12

information reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” Oakes v. Halvorsen

13

Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998). The party resisting discovery “has the burden

14

to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and

15

supporting its objections.” Id.

16

III.

DISCUSSION

17

The documents at issue relate to DOL’s investigation of ILWU following the complaint

18

lodged against it. ILWU argues that these documents are relevant to its defenses, particularly its

19

unclean hands defense.1 The motion asserts that DOL improperly withheld the documents because

20

it “(1) failed to have its agency head personally review documents it withheld or redacted on

21

deliberative process grounds; (2) failed to identify a specific decision for which a withheld or

22

redacted document was pre-decisional; (3) failed to produce segregable facts in pre-decisional

23

documents, such as timelines; (4) withheld or redacted documents containing recommendations

24

adopted by its final decision(s); (5) withheld or redacted on deliberative process grounds documents

25
26
27
28

The defense asserts that a court is not required to void a union election “in the exceptional
circumstances of this case in which an incumbent union faction intentionally violated the LMRDA
election rules, lost the election, and then complained to the Secretary in an effort to undo the election
results.” See Marshall v. Local 1010, United Steelworkers, 664 F.2d 144, 146 (7th Cir. 1981).
1

2

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 21

1

that were not distributed but merely saved to a file; (6) improperly invoked an ‘investigative files

2

privilege’ to withhold or redact documents; (7) improperly withheld documents under attorney-

3

client privilege when no attorney authored or received them; and (8) improperly withheld on

4

attorney work product grounds documents which it developed in the regular course of business.”

5

Mot. at 1. Except for a limited objection regarding its investigative files, see infra, DOL does not

6

object to production of the documents on the basis of relevance or proportionality.
A.

8

The deliberative process privilege protects “the decision making processes of government

9

agencies” in order to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.”2 N. L. R. B. v. Sears,

10

Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-51 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Deliberative Process Privilege

underlying premise of the privilege is that agency decision-making might be impaired if discussions

12

within the agency were subject to public review, thereby discouraging ‘frank discussion of legal or

13

policy matters.’” In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 264

14

F.R.D. 595, 600 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Sears, 264 F.R.D. at 600). The deliberative process

15

privilege is not absolute, and even if the privilege applies, “a litigant may obtain discovery of

16

protected material if the need for the documents outweighs the governmental interest in keeping the

17

decision making process confidential.” McKesson, 264 F.R.D. at 601. The Ninth Circuit has

18

“defined the ambit of the deliberative process privilege . . . narrowly.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. United

19

States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 925 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2019); McKesson, 264 F.R.D. at 600

20

(“The privilege ‘must be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the

21

logic of its principles.’”) (quoting K.L. v. Edgar, 964 F. Supp. 1206, 1208 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). The

22

agency bears the burden of showing the privilege applies. Sierra Club, Inc., 925 F.3d at 1011.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Sears addressed the applicability of Exemption 5 in a case brought under the Freedom for
Information Act (“FOIA”). However, Sears noted that Congress adopted Exemption 5 in
recognition of the executive privilege. 421 U.S. at 150 (“That Congress had the Government's
executive privilege specifically in mind in adopting Exemption 5 is clear.”). The deliberative
process privilege is one form of executive privilege. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C.
Cir. 1997). Thus, Sear’s analysis of executive privilege under Exemption 5 is applicable to this
case. See California Native Plant Soc’y v. U.S. E.P.A., 251 F.R.D. 408, 411 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2008)
(“With minor exceptions, [Exemption 5] cases are generally applicable to the discovery context.”).
3

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 21

1.

1

Invocation of the Privilege

2

ILWU first argues that the deliberative privilege does not apply because DOL’s agency head

3

did not personally review the documents for which DOL asserts the privilege. See McKesson, 264

4

F.R.D. at 601 (“Generally, the deliberative process privilege may be invoked only by the agency

5

head after personally reviewing the documents for which the privilege is asserted.”).
Brian Pifer, DOL’s Director of the Office of Field Operations within the Office of Labor-

7

Management Standards (“OLMS”), testified that he did not review each of the documents that DOL

8

withheld based on the deliberative process privilege. See Docket No. 98, Declaration of Tanya

9

Smith (“Smith Decl.”), Ex. 22, Deposition of Brian Pifer (“Pifer Depo.”) at 74:1-9. Instead, Pifer

10

submitted a declaration that explains his familiarity with the OLMS investigative process. See

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Docket No. 98, Declaration of Tanya Smith (“Smith Decl.”), Ex. 19, First Declaration of Brian A.

12

Pifer (“First Pifer Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-15.

13

deliberations in deciding whether to pursue litigation in this case and the documents relevant to

14

those deliberations. Id. ¶¶ 16-22. Pifer testifies that he reviewed a representative sample of the

15

documents withheld on the basis of the deliberative process privilege. [Docket No. 104-1, Second

16

Declaration of Brian A. Pifer (“Second Pifer Decl.”) ¶ 3.] DOL argues that Pifer’s declarations

17

adequately describe the grounds for asserting privilege and that review of each individual document

18

is not required. Opp. at 9 (citing Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 751 F.2d 395, 400,

19

402 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

20

Pifer also details his personal knowledge of OLMS’s

As noted by ILWU, the majority of DOL’s authority on this point examines the state secrets

21

privilege.

See Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 1998); Northrop Corp. v.

22

McDonnell Douglas Corp., 751 F.2d 395, 400, 402 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Crater Corp. v. Lucent Techs.,

23

Inc., 423 F.3d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138, 1141

24

(5th Cir. 1992). However, the “prerequisites for formal invocation of [executive privileges] have

25

been uniformly applied irrespective of the particular kind of executive claim advanced.” United

26

States v. O’Neill, 619 F.2d 222, 226 (3d Cir. 1980) (quoting Carter v. Carlson, 56 F.R.D. 9, 10

27

(D.D.C. Aug. 16, 1972)); see also Coastal Corp. v. Duncan, 86 F.R.D. 514, 517 (D. Del. May 5,

28

1980) (citing cases).

Indeed, McKesson, which is ILWU’s central case, relied on authority
4

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 21

discussing the states secret privilege.3 In any event, McKesson is readily distinguishable. Although

2

the court faulted the government for not explaining the basis of invoking the privilege for “each

3

document,” the agency head in that case had not submitted a declaration or privilege log at all. See

4

264 F.R.D. at 602. Here, DOL has submitted a privilege log as well as Pifer’s detailed declaration.

5

Additionally, to the extent that McKesson stands for the proposition that the deliberative process

6

privilege can only be invoked upon review of the specific document by the agency head, the Ninth

7

Circuit has since disavowed that view with respect to the state secrets privilege, which is evaluated

8

under the same invocation standard. See Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1169 (“In a case such as this, the

9

Secretary, once she has properly invoked the claim of privilege and adequately identified categories

10

of privileged information, cannot reasonably be expected personally to explain why each item of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

information arguably responsive to a discovery request affects the national interest.” (emphasis

12

added)).

13

ILWU does not argue that Pifer’s declaration is insufficient under Kasza or other similar

14

authority.4 Accordingly, the court holds that Pifer’s declaration properly invoked the deliberative

15

process privilege, even though Pifer did not personally review every withheld document.
2.

16

Application of the Privilege

17

The deliberative process privilege applies only to documents that are both “pre-decisional”

18

and “deliberative.” Maricopa Audubon Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.

19

1997) (“Maricopa II”). A document is pre-decisional if it is “prepared in order to assist an agency

20

decisionmaker in arriving at his decision, and may include recommendations, draft documents,

21

proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

McKesson cited Coastal Corp., a case discussing the deliberative process privilege, which in turn
relied on the seminal Supreme Court decision regarding invocation of privilege over military and
state secrets. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953) (“There must be formal claim of
privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual
personal consideration by that officer.”).
4

Although the court holds that an agency head does not need to personally review every document
in order to invoke the deliberative process privilege, the government must still provide sufficient
detail “to insure that the privilege remains a narrow privilege which is not indiscriminately invoked.”
United States v. Rozet, 183 F.R.D. 662, 665 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Pifer’s detailed declaration, in
combination with the privilege log, meets that standard here.
5

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 21

1

writer rather than the policy of the agency.” Assembly of State of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce,

2

968 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A document is

3

deliberative if disclosure of the materials “would expose an agency’s decision-making process in

4

such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's

5

ability to perform its functions.’” Id. at 921.
a.

6

Pre-Decisional Documents

ILWU argues that DOL has not adequately articulated the “decision” for which the withheld

8

documents are “pre-decisional.” See Maricopa II, 108 F.3d at 1094 (stating that an agency claiming

9

the privilege “must identify a specific decision to which the document is predecisional”). ILWU

10

asserts that each decision must be identified at a granular level; thus, according to ILWU, DOL must

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

identify the specific allegations to which each document relates, including “allegations ILWU

12

denied members in Panama the right to vote by not extending their voting time, used an inaccurate

13

voting list for one Panama affiliate, distributed incomplete voting instructions, or failed to issue

14

replacement ballots once ILWU learned that a box of ballots was on its way to San Francisco.” Mot.

15

at 8. DOL responds that the law does not require the identification of a decision at ILWU’s proposed

16

level of specificity, and that all withheld documents relate to its decision “that there was probable

17

cause to believe that violations of LMRDA occurred in connection with ILWU’s election.” Opp. at

18

10-11.

19

The court agrees with DOL’s position, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sears. In

20

Sears, a FOIA plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of advice and appeals memoranda issued by the

21

general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). The relevant documents were

22

generated by NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel “in the course of deciding whether or not to

23

permit the filing with the Board of unfair labor practice complaints.” 421 U.S. at 135-36. The

24

Supreme Court distinguished between two types of memoranda requested: those that constituted the

25

“final decision” of the NLRB to not permit the filing of a complaint and those that merely explain a

26

decision to file a complaint and commence litigation in an ongoing matter. See id. at 148. In

27

examining the applicability of FOIA’s Exemption 5 to the former category of documents, the Court

28

observed that “it is difficult to see how the quality of a decision will be affected by communications
6

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 21

with respect to the decision occurring after the decision is finally reached.” Id. at 151; see supra n.

2

5 (discussing the relation between Exemption 5 and the deliberative process privilege).

3

accordingly found that “[d]isclosure of [the final decision] memoranda would not intrude on

4

predecisional processes, and protecting them would not improve the quality of agency decisions.”

5

Id. at 155. By contrast, the Court held that the General Counsel’s memoranda directing the filing

6

of a complaint fall within the coverage of Exemption 5 because those documents relate to ongoing

7

litigation and “will inexorably contain the General Counsel’s theory of the case and may

8

communicate to the Regional Director some litigation strategy or settlement advice.”5 Id. at 159-

9

60. For purposes of analyzing ILWU’s argument, the primary takeaway from Sears is that a decision

10

to commence litigation is sufficiently specific to invoke the deliberative process privilege over pre-

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

litigation investigative documents.6 DOL’s decision to file this case is equally specific.
In sum, ILWU’s argument that DOL must identify each decision it made with respect to

12
13

It

particular claims and allegations is not supported by the caselaw.
b.

14

Deliberative Documents

15

In order for a document to be “deliberative” it should disclose the personal opinions or

16

“mental processes of decision-makers.” California Native Plant Soc’y v. U.S. E.P.A., 251 F.R.D. at

17

413. Deliberative documents “reflect[] the give-and-take of the consultative process” and include

18

documents that would “inaccurately reflect or prematurely disclose the views of the agency,

19

suggesting as agency position that which is as yet only a personal position.” Coastal States Gas

20

Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Examples of deliberative documents

21

include “staff memoranda to senior agency officials with recommendations, legal interpretations

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court analogized this principle to the work product doctrine’s protection of documents
“prepared in anticipation of litigation,” since it was clear that Congress intended to incorporate the
doctrine into Exemption 5. As discussed below in the context of the work product doctrine, ILWU
does not persuasively argue that any documents are unrelated to DOL’s decision to file suit.
5

ILWU’s reliance on United States ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. does not contradict
this conclusion. See 2018 WL 8459926, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018). In that case, the
government did not identify any policy or decision to which its withheld documents related and
instead only listed the general subject areas covered by the documents. Here, by contrast, DOL
identifies its specific decision to pursue litigation against ILWU.
6

7

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 21

and drafts of litigation documents,” and “documents [that] reflect an agency’s preliminary positions

2

about how to exercise discretion on a policy.” United States v. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385, 1389 (7th Cir.

3

1993). Such documents may “weigh[] the pros and cons of agency adoption of one viewpoint or

4

another.” Coastal States Gas Corp., 617 F.2d at 866. They could contain advice, recommendations,

5

or suggestions from an inferior to a superior. Maricopa II, 108 F.3d at 1094. However, a final

6

decision-maker need not review every requested document so long as the information is part of the

7

decision-making process “as a whole.” Moye, O’Brien, O’Rourke, Hogan, & Pickert v. Nat’l R.R.

8

Passenger Corp., 376 F.3d 1270, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004) (finding that internal memoranda and audit

9

work papers were protected by the deliberative process because they were part of the “entire body

10

of collaborative work” performed by the agency); see also Sears, 421 U.S. at 150 (explaining that

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the privilege protects “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations

12

comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated” (internal

13

quotation marks and citation omitted)); Sierra Club, 925 F.3d at 1016 (documents “reflecting the

14

opinions of individuals or groups of employees rather than the position of an entire agency” are

15

deliberative).

16

ILWU argues that DOL has not met its burden to show that the withheld documents are

17

deliberative because its privilege log does not describe how each document played a role in making

18

the decision to file this lawsuit. See California Native Plant Soc’y, 251 F.R.D. at 413 (“[I]n order

19

to protect a document as “deliberative” under the deliberative process privilege, an agency must

20

show enough detail so that the court can determine how each document fits into the deliberative

21

process.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). ILWU lists examples of document

22

descriptions on DOL’s privilege log that it contends are deficient, such as “Report of Investigation,”

23

and “OLMS deliberations regarding possible case theories.” Mot. at 7; see Smith Decl., Ex. 28,

24

Privilege Log, lines 3 and 181. ILWU asserts that DOL withheld 82 documents under the

25

deliberative process privilege “for which DOL fails to describe the decision it was deliberating, and

26

the role of that document in its deliberation.” Mot. at 7. DOL responds that Pifer’s description of

27

the investigative process, in combination with the descriptions in the privilege log, adequately

28

apprise ILWU of the role each withheld document played in the deliberative process. Such
8

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 21

1

documents include “various deliberative memoranda: the case opening memorandum, field

2

investigator Diaz’s election records review memorandum, Diaz’s ROI and analysis and

3

recommendation memoranda, supervisory investigator Michel’s transmittal memorandum, the New

4

York field office’s ROI and records review memorandum regarding GES’ election records, and

5

CRLM attorneys’ legal analysis,” in addition to emails between investigators discussing how to

6

proceed with the investigation, investigator notes, documents that assisted in organizing the

7

investigation, and documents prepared in order to seek legal advice. Opp. at 11-12.
Many of the relevant privilege log entries explicitly state that they contain

9

“recommendations,” “analyses,” or “assessments.” See, e.g., Privilege Log, lines 1-2, 5, 14, 28, 34-

10

36, 45, 81, 94, 100, 150, 165, 312, 319. Others are less specific, including those identified by ILWU.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

See, e.g., Privilege Log, lines 3 (“Report of Investigation”), 10 (“Deliberations relating to violations

12

found”); 17 (“Redacted discussion regarding evidence”). Although a description like “Report of

13

Investigation” is not specific on its own, Pifer’s declaration details the ROI process as well as how

14

the ROI was developed in this case. See First Pifer Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, 17. In relevant part, Pifer explains

15

that field investigators prepare an ROI that outlines their “assessment of whether the evidence

16

obtained would or would not support a possible finding of probable cause that a violation of the

17

LMRDA occurred.” Id. ¶ 9. The ROI concludes with a field investigator’s recommendation to a

18

supervisor, who then reviews the ROI and sends it to the Chief of the DOE with an explanation of

19

the evidence and whether the supervisor agrees with the investigator’s recommendation. Id. Pifer’s

20

declaration names the investigators involved with developing the ROI and how that report proceeded

21

through the agency and contributed to the decision about whether to file this lawsuit. Id. ¶¶ 16-21.

22

The privilege log entries relating to the ROI show that many of the documents in question were sent

23

by lower-level employees to supervisors, which supports Pifer’s account of the process. See Senate

24

of the Com. of Puerto Rico on Behalf of Judiciary Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574,

25

586 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“[I]ntra-agency memoranda from ‘subordinate’ to ‘superior’ more likely to

26

be deliberative in character than documents traveling in opposite direction.”). ILWU appears to

27

contend that Pifer’s declaration is not sufficient because it does not analyze the privilege on a

28

“document-by-document” basis. This argument is not convincing for the reasons laid out above.
9

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 21

1

See Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1169 (finding that an agency head “cannot reasonably be expected personally

2

to explain why each item of information arguably responsive to a discovery request” is protected by

3

executive privilege). ILWU does not explain which part of the ROI process does not contain

4

deliberations, analyses, and recommendations, or how the documents at issue do not relate to DOL’s

5

ultimate decision to file a complaint. Thus, the privilege log description in combination with Pifer’s

6

declaration sufficiently establishes that at least portions of the ROI and its drafts contain deliberative

7

material.7 See California Native Plant Soc’y, 251 F.R.D. at 413 (“[A] detailed declaration from

8

senior agency staff, explaining how the withheld material fits into the decision-making process, can

9

provide enough information to protect a document. . . .”).
On the other hand, some of the descriptions in the privilege log are not sufficiently specific.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The document described at line 17 of the Privilege Log is titled “Email communication – Re: RE:

12

Lazaro Salas” and described as a “Redacted discussion regarding evidence.” The description

13

provides no information at all about how that email contributed to DOL’s deliberative process.

14

Similarly, line 10 asserts that it relates to “Deliberations relating to violations found,” but merely

15

invoking the word “deliberations” does not establish that the document contains personal opinions

16

or recommendations. See California Native Plant Soc’y 251 F.R.D. at 413 (declarations from a

17

senior agency official “generally attesting to the fact that the documents are deliberative and pre-

18

decisional” were not sufficient because they “merely assert conclusory statements in a boilerplate

19

format”); Senate of the Com. of Puerto Rico on Behalf of Judiciary Comm., 823 F.2d at 585, 589

20

(finding descriptions like “information pertaining to pre-decisional advice and recommendations”

21

were inadequate).

22

In sum, some of DOL’s descriptions are adequate and some are not. Therefore, DOL is

23

ordered to amend its log consistent with the analysis above. DOL shall revisit each of the documents

24

for which it claims the deliberative process privilege (not just the specific documents discussed

25

above) to ensure that each document is described with adequate specificity. In addition, or

26

alternatively, DOL may file supplemental declarations establishing that the documents are properly

27
28

7

The court addresses below whether such documents also contain segregable factual material that
does not qualify for protection.
10

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 21

1

designated. If DOL determines that a document should not have been withheld, it must immediately

2

produce the document to ILWU.
c.

3

Segregable Facts

While opinions are protected under the deliberative process privilege, “purely factual”

5

material is not. F.T.C. v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Warner”).

6

However, factual material can still be protected if “its disclosure would reveal a decision-maker’s

7

mental process.” California Native Plant Soc’y, 251 F.R.D. at 413. “To withhold documents

8

containing factual information under the deliberative process privilege, the declarant must show that

9

the factual information is intertwined with the author’s opinions such that the facts and opinions

10

cannot be practically separated.” Poehling, 2018 WL 8459926, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

(citing Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161). It is the government’s burden to establish that “all reasonably

12

segregable portions of a document have been segregated and disclosed.” Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v.

13

United States, 539 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2008). The “key” to determining whether factual

14

information is segregable is “whether revealing the information exposes the deliberative process.”

15

Id. at 921.

16

ILWU argues that DOL has not met its burden to show that certain factual material was

17

properly withheld. ILWU points specifically to timelines DOL has not produced, as well as

18

memoranda and reports that “likely” contain factual material. Mot. at 8. For example, line 220 of

19

the Privilege Log lists a document titled Timeline_ILWU_3-5-19.docx, which the Log describes as

20

“OLMS compilation of facts in a timeline requested by and for the use of attorneys providing legal

21

advice regarding probable cause that violations occurred.”

22

dispute that the timelines contain segregable factual material; it instead asserts that those documents

23

are protected by the work product doctrine. See Opp. at 15. “The attorney work-product doctrine

24

and deliberative process privileges . . . differ in important ways.” Pac. Fisheries, Inc., 539 F.3d at

25

1148. Relevant here, the work product doctrine does not automatically require disclosure of purely

26

factual material. Id. DOL does not offer any rationale for withholding the timelines under the

27

deliberative process privilege. Thus, in its amended privilege log, DOL must withdraw its assertions

28

of the deliberative process privilege over the timelines. Whether those documents are protected by
11

The government does not appear to

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 21

1

the work product doctrine is discussed below.
ILWU also challenges DOL’s withholding of “memoranda likely to contain a facts section,”

3

“investigative report[s] containing facts,” and emails. Mot. at 8; Reply at 9. ILWU’s sole example

4

of these reports and memos is the document listed at line 150 of the Privilege Log, titled Proposed

5

Complaint and Legal Analysis to DOJ_3-121-2019.pdf, which is described as a “legal analysis of

6

allegations, including recommendation whether to file suit and draft complaint prepared by the

7

Office of the Solicitor, master version.” This is not ILWU’s best example, since a draft complaint

8

containing a recommendation to file suit falls squarely under the deliberative process privilege and

9

it is not clear that such a document would contain segregable facts. However, other items listed on

10

the Privilege Log are more questionable. Line 14 of the Privilege Log describes a “Case Opening

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Memorandum containing field inspector’s initial assessment of the allegations in the union member

12

complaint and potential relevant facts,” a description that is repeated for other documents on the

13

Log. See, e.g., Privilege Log lines 18, 27, 38, 81. Other memoranda include the ROI, an analysis

14

and recommendation memo, and a transmittal memo. See Opp. at 16 n. 19; Privilege Log, lines 1

15

(“Memorandum reflecting whether supervisory investigator agrees or disagrees with field

16

investigator’s recommendation”), 2 (“Reflecting inspector’s deliberations regarding whether the

17

evidence gathered during the investigation supports a finding that there is probable cause to believe

18

that the violation(s) occurred that may have affected the outcome of the election”), 3 (“Report of

19

Investigation, final version”). DOL asserts that the factual portions of these documents are “so

20

intertwined with deliberative materials that the factual portions are protected from disclosure as

21

well.” Opp. at 15, 16. Pifer testifies that “[t]he agency has attempted to release all reasonably

22

segregable material in materials that it has withheld as part of the deliberative process relating to the

23

probable cause determination for ILWU.” First Pifer Decl. ¶ 23. DOL points out that it has released

24

32 exhibits to the ROI, interview reports, memoranda containing reviews of election records, and

25

other record review memoranda, which demonstrates its efforts to disclose all reasonably segregable

26

factual material. Id.

27

DOL must do more to support the basis for withholding facts contained in documents. An

28

agency can meet its burden in the segregable facts analysis “by offering an affidavit with reasonably
12

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 21

detailed descriptions of the withheld portions of the documents and alleging facts sufficient to

2

establish an exemption.” Pac. Fisheries, Inc., 539 F.3d at 1148. The affidavit should disclose “as

3

much information as possible without thwarting” the purpose of the deliberative process privilege.

4

See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pifer’s declaration does not meet this

5

standard. He testifies as to the general content of the withheld documents but does not explain why

6

the material does not contain segregable facts. See First Pifer Decl. ¶ 22. While these assertions

7

are enough to determine that portions of the documents are properly withheld, it is impossible to tell

8

from either Pifer’s declaration or the privilege log whether the described memoranda and reports

9

contain, for example, a facts section that is not intertwined with analysis. Kowack v. U.S. Forest

10

Serv., 766 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A stand-alone fact section, for example, could likely

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

be disclosed without revealing the agency’s deliberative process, while isolated facts embedded

12

within a subordinate’s explanation of why the allegations were meritless may not be.”).

13

Because DOL has failed to meet its burden to show that it has disclosed all reasonably

14

segregable factual material in its reports, it must either (1) amend its log to remove the relevant

15

assertions of deliberative process privilege and produce documents or portions of documents that

16

are not otherwise privileged or (2) submit declarations that detail why the factual material in such

17

documents is not reasonably segregable.

18

d.

Adopted Recommendations

19

A document that is pre-decisional may “lose that status if it is adopted, formally or

20

informally, as the agency position on an issue or is used by the agency in its dealings with the

21

public.” United States v. Rozet, 183 F.R.D. 662, 666 (N.D. Cal. 1998). ILWU argues that DOL is

22

now obligated to disclose the recommendations and analyses it ultimately adopted by filing suit,

23

since DOL’s allegations in this case are a “final decision.” Mot. at 10. ILWU does not offer any

24

authority that an agency’s decision to file a lawsuit is a “final adopted policy” such that the

25

recommendations supporting that decision must be disclosed. In fact, Sears (the only case cited by

26

ILWU) explicitly states the opposite. See Sears, 421 U.S. at 150 (“Advice and Appeals Memoranda

27

which direct the filing of a complaint, on the other hand, fall within the coverage of Exemption 5.

28

The filing of a complaint does not finally dispose even of the General Counsel’s responsibility with
13

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 21

1

respect to the case.”); see also Heggestad v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C.

2

2000) (“In this case, the prosecution memoranda at issue were not the final disposition of the case,

3

because a decision was subsequently made to prosecute and the prosecution did in fact occur.”).
Therefore, DOL’s deliberative documents did not lose protection of the deliberative process

4
5

privilege simply because DOL chose to file suit.8
e.

6

Undistributed Files

Some of the documents at issue were not distributed within the DOL or presented to a final-

8

decision-maker. These include documents that an investigator “saved to file” or sent to herself. For

9

example, some investigators saved files with titles “Notes on Conference Call w AUSA Kim

10

Robinson_4-12-19.docx” (line 201), “Interview Qs_Familathe_2-26-19.docx” (line 206), and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

“Notes_12-7-18 and beyond_convos w field.docx” (line 211). ILWU argues that these items are

12

not protected by the deliberative process privilege because they were not used to recommend action

13

to a superior or even viewed by a supervisor. The court disagrees that any undistributed file is

14

automatically unprotected.

15

employee’s handwritten notes directed ‘to file’ to be privileged under Exemption Five. It would be

16

an anomalous result to exempt memoranda that have circulated within the agency and yet force

17

disclosure of the handwritten notes used to prepare those same memoranda.” Conoco Inc. v. U.S.

18

Dep’t of Justice, 687 F.2d 724, 728 (3d Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted).

19

undistributed files must still meet the requirements of the deliberative process privilege, as described

20

above. It is not clear from the privilege log how the identified files fit into the deliberative process

21

or whether all segregable factual material has been disclosed. Pifer’s declaration also does not

22

discuss any of these files and it is not clear that he would have personal knowledge of an

23

investigator’s private notes. There is no declaration from the investigator herself about what these

24

documents contain or how they contributed to the deliberative process.

“Applying a commonsense approach, courts have found agency

However,

25
26
27
28

8

ILWU also seems to argue that five documents created by DOL after the commencement of
litigation are not “pre-decisional” because they occurred after DOL decided to file suit. This
argument is similarly unconvincing. In addition to deciding to file suit, DOL also decided to amend
its complaint. The documents are pre-decisional with respect to that decision because that
determination occurred during litigation before a “final disposition” of the case. See Heggestad,
182 F. Supp. 2d at 9.
14

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 15 of 21

1
2
3

Accordingly, DOL must revisit these documents following the same standards the court set
above with respect to identifying deliberative material and segregable facts.
3.

Waiver of Privilege

The deliberative process privilege is not absolute. Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161. “A litigant

5

may obtain deliberative materials if his or her need for the materials and the need for accurate fact-

6

finding override the government’s interest in non-disclosure.” Id. It is the requesting party’s burden

7

“to show that the privilege should be waived in the instant case.” California Native Plant Soc., 251

8

F.R.D. at 415. To determine whether waiver should occur, a court should consider “1) the relevance

9

of the evidence; 2) the availability of other evidence; 3) the government’s role in the litigation; and

10

4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

contemplated policies and decisions.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161.

12

ILWU argues that its need for the requested documents exceeds DOL’s interest in

13

withholding them. This argument is unavailing. First, ILWU says nothing specific about the

14

relevance of the documents sought and instead offers conclusory assertions such as: “[the

15

documents] are central to providing ILWU with materials relevant to several defenses, including its

16

unclean hands defense,” “documents about DOL’s count process [are] relevant to ILWU’s defense

17

and proportional to the needs of the case,” and “complete information about how DOL conducted

18

its investigation and came to its conclusions are . . . highly relevant to ILWU’s defenses.” Mot. at

19

1, 15; Reply at 12. These assertions explain nothing about what ILWU expects the documents to

20

show or how that information is not available from other sources, including its own discovery and

21

investigation and the documents already produced by DOL. See Farley, 11 F.3d at 1389–90 (finding

22

a litigant’s claim that the documents sought were “relevant and generally important to his

23

affirmative defenses” was an “insufficient reason for breaching the deliberative process privilege”).

24

Therefore, the first and second factors weigh in favor of DOL. The fourth factor also weighs against

25

disclosure since the court has already found that disclosure of the documents would reveal DOL’s

26

“contemplated . . . decisions.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161. While the third factor weighs in ILWU’s

27

favor because the government is a party to this action, the balance of factors do not support waiver

28

of the deliberative process privilege.
15

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 16 of 21

According, ILWU fails to meet its burden to show that its need for the documents outweighs

1
2

the government’s interests in withholding them.
B.

4

“There is a qualified investigatory privilege for informal deliberations of prosecutorial

5

agencies and branches of government.” Valley Surgical Ctr. v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 2017 WL

6

10574239, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017) (citing N.L.R.B. v. Silver Spur Casino, 623 F.2d 571,

7

580 (9th Cir. 1980)). This privilege has been variously referred to as the “investigatory privilege,”

8

the “law enforcement privilege,” the “federal investigatory privilege,” and the “official information

9

privilege.” Silver Spur Casino, 632 F.2d at 580; Perez v. Guardian Roofing LLC, 2016 WL

10

1408027, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2016); Brooks v. Cty. of San Joaquin, 275 F.R.D. 528, 532

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Government Investigatory Privilege

(E.D. Cal. 2011). The privilege “preserves the confidentiality of investigative files and applies to

12

informal investigatory material and preliminary determinations.” Solis v. Seafood Peddler of San

13

Rafael, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-0116 PJH (NC), 2012 WL 12547592, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012);

14

see also Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176 (D.D.C. 1998), aff’d, 203 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

15

(“The federal law enforcement privilege is a qualified privilege designed to prevent disclosure of

16

information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law

17

enforcement.”). The privilege is “exclusive to the government” and must be invoked through a

18

“formal claim of privilege” by a responsible government official . . . after actual personal

19

consideration of the information sought.” U.S. ex rel. Burroughs v. DeNardi Corp., 167 F.R.D. 680,

20

687 (S.D. Cal. 1996). Further, the privilege claim “must specify with particularity the information

21

for which the protection is sought, and explain why the information falls within the scope of the

22

privilege.” Id. “The party asserting the investigatory privilege has the burden to establish its

23

existence.” Valley Surgical Ctr., 2017 WL 10574239, at *4.

24

At issue here are four documents DOL withheld under what it refers to as “the investigatory

25

files privilege.”9 Three of these relate to DOL’s ballot-counting method.10 See Privilege Log, lines

26
27
28

9

It is clear that DOL is asserting the same privilege explained above, which the court will refer to
here as the “government investigatory privilege.”
10

Neither party explains the “ballot-counting method” in detail, but it appears to relate to how DOL
16

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 17 of 21

1

46, 47, 87. The fourth file is an “administrative case evaluation worksheet, . . . which is a tool used

2

to evaluate the field investigator’s report of investigation and analysis and recommendation

3

memorandum.” Opp. at 21-22; Privilege Log, line 329. At the hearing, the parties agreed to produce

4

these documents under the protective order in this case, with an Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation.

5

Accordingly, DOL shall produce the documents at lines 46, 47, 87, and 329 subject to the

6

parties’ protective order.
C.

8

The attorney-client privilege protects from discovery “confidential communications between

9

attorneys and clients, which are made for the purpose of giving legal advice.” United States v.

10

Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. IBM

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Attorney-Client Privilege

Corp., Case No. 09-cv-5897-RS (PSG), 2011 WL 1599646, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2011). The

12

privilege attaches when (1) legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser

13

in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5)

14

by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the

15

legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived. Richey, 632 F.3d at 566 (brackets, citation, and

16

quotation marks omitted).

17

Attorney-client privilege is “narrowly and strictly construed,” and the party asserting it bears

18

the burden of proving that it applies. Vasudevan Software, Inc., 2011 WL 1599646, at *1 (footnotes

19

and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 493 (N.D. Cal.

20

2003) (holding that party asserting privilege “must make a prima facie showing” that privilege

21

applies) (citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992)); see Richey,

22

632 F.3d at 566. The privilege protects only communications, and not underlying facts. Upjohn v.

23

United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396 (1981) (finding that a party “may not refuse to disclose any

24

relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he incorporated a statement of such fact into his

25

communication to his attorney”) (citations omitted).

26

ILWU moves to compel 21 documents that DOL withheld on the basis of attorney-client

27
28

determined that 608 due-paying members of the Panamanian locals were not sent ballots. See Mot.
at 16.
17

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 18 of 21

privilege. It argues that the documents are emails sent between DOL employees, none of whom are

2

attorneys, and thus the attorney-client privilege does not apply. DOL responds that communications

3

between non-attorneys are protected by attorney-client privilege when they relay or discuss legal

4

advice. This court examined attorney-client privilege with respect to non-attorney employees in

5

Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Adobe Inc., 402 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (Ryu, J.). There,

6

the court explained that attorney-client privilege attaches to communications between non-attorney

7

employees where “(1) the employees discuss or transmit legal advice given by counsel; and (2) an

8

employee discusses her intent to seek legal advice about a particular issue.” Id. at 866 (quoting

9

Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 09-cv-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993, at *5 (N.D.

10

Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)). The court also noted that a “vague declaration that states only that the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

document ‘reflects’ an attorney’s advice is insufficient to demonstrate that the document should be

12

found privileged.” Id. at 866 (quoting Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. 00-cv-

13

20905-RMW, 2008 WL 350641, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2008)). Under this standard, DOL’s

14

showing is patently insufficient. The Privilege Log includes vague, general statements such as

15

“Redacted exchange reflecting attorney-client communications” (lines 83-85), “Redacted attorney

16

questions and client response” (line 163), “Attorney question regarding evidentiary record and legal

17

strategy and OLMS response” (line 187), and “Communication in response to attorney

18

communication” (line 233). DOL submitted no attorney declarations attesting that these documents

19

contain their legal advice or declarations from the participating employees that they were drafted

20

with the purpose of seeking legal advice. See Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp., 402 F. Supp. 3d at 865

21

(“[A]ttorney declarations generally are necessary to support the designating party’s position in a

22

dispute about attorney-client privilege.”); Datel Holdings Ltd., 2011 WL 866993, at *5 (holding that

23

attorney-client privilege did not protect communications between employees where there was “no

24

showing that the results of the investigation were ever conveyed to counsel”); Oracle Am., Inc. v.

25

Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-03561-WHA (DMR), 2011 WL 3794892, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)

26

(finding an attorney’s affidavit insufficient to establish privilege where the attorney did not testify

27

that the document was “connected to the work he requested . . . as part of the provision of legal

28

advice he describes in his declaration.”). It is unclear, for example, whether the “attorney questions”
18

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 19 of 21

1

referenced are forwarded from attorneys, relayed based on conversations with counsel, or came from

2

a different source. There is no indication of the subject matter about which legal advice was provided

3

or sought.

4

In sum, DOL’s summary descriptions do not establish that the documents in question relay

5

legal advice from attorneys or discuss employees’ intent to seek legal advice. Therefore, DOL must

6

submit declarations supporting that the communications in question meet the standard set forth in

7

Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp.
D.

9

The work product doctrine protects from discovery “materials prepared by an attorney in

10

anticipation of litigation,” be they “by or for the attorney.” United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Attorney Work Product

487, 494 (2003) (citations omitted); accord United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir.

12

2011). It aims to balance the “promotion of an attorney’s preparation in representing a client” and

13

“society’s general interest in revealing all true and material facts to the resolution of a dispute.” In

14

re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted),

15

abrogated on other grounds by Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923

16

(2016). To qualify for work-product protection, materials must “(1) be prepared in anticipation of

17

litigation or for trial and (2) be prepared by or for another party or by or for that other party’s

18

representative.” Richey, 632 F.3d at 567 (citation and quotation marks omitted). When a document

19

was not prepared exclusively for litigation, it will receive protection if “in light of the nature of the

20

document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can be fairly said to have

21

been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” Id. at 568 (citation and quotation

22

marks omitted). This analysis requires the court to examine the totality of the circumstances and

23

determine whether the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation and “would not have been

24

created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of litigation.” Id. (citation and quotation

25

marks omitted).

26

Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine may be overcome by a party’s

27

showing of “need and undue hardship.” In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d at 1375 (citing Fed. R.

28

Civ. P. 26(b)(3)). The degree of showing required, however, depends on whether the sought-after
19

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 20 of 21

1

material “is factual, or the result of mental processes such as plans, strategies, tactics, and

2

impressions, whether memorialized in writing or not.” Id. (citations omitted). Factual materials

3

simply require a demonstration of “substantial need and undue hardship,” while materials reflecting

4

mental processes receive greater, “nearly absolute” protection. Id. (citations omitted).
ILWU challenges DOL’s assertion of work product protection over several documents.

6

However, the rationales for its challenges are unsupported. First, ILWU argues that DOL did not

7

assert work product protection over these documents in its prior privilege logs.11 By itself, DOL’s

8

alleged inconsistent assertions of privilege in prior versions of the privilege log does not raise an

9

inference that work product protection does not apply. Second, ILWU asserts that documents

10

prepared “in the ordinary course of business” are not protected by work product doctrine but does

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

not point to any documents on the Privilege Log that appear to be ordinary business documents. For

12

example, ILWU points to documents titled “Interview Qs_Familathe_2-26-19.docx” and

13

“Timeline_ILWU_2-20-19.docx” but does not explain why it believes DOL would generate such

14

documents in the ordinary course of business. Mot. at 22. Pifer’s declaration lays out the history

15

of the investigation into ILWU’s 2018 election, the investigation DOL performed in response to a

16

complaint about the election, and DOL’s decision to file this lawsuit based on its findings. This

17

unrebutted testimony is sufficient to show that the documents were prepared in anticipation of

18

litigation. Finally, ILWU appears to argue that DOL should have produced “segregable facts”

19

contained in its work product.

20

deliberative process privilege. While the former requires production of segregable factual material,

21

the latter does not. See Pac. Fisheries, Inc., 539 F.3d at 1148. Unlike the deliberative process

22

privilege, the work product doctrine does not require disclosure of purely factual material absent a

23

showing of need. Id.
Because ILWU has not raised an inference that DOL’s assertions of work product protection

24
25

This argument conflates work product protection with the

are inappropriate, the court denies ILWU’s motion to compel these documents.

26
27
28

11

ILWU does not argue that DOL waived the privilege by failing to assert it in prior versions of the
log.
20

Case 4:19-cv-02103-DMR Document 124 Filed 11/18/20 Page 21 of 21

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the court grants in part and denies in part ILWU’s motion to

3

compel. By December 9, 2020, DOL shall: (1) amend its privilege log and/or submit additional

4

declarations establishing that documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege are

5

properly designated; (2) produce the four documents identified above that were withheld on the

6

basis of the government investigatory privilege, subject to an AEO designation under the parties’

7

protective order; (3) submit declarations supporting the communications between non-attorney

8

employees are properly protected under attorney-client privilege; and (4) remove any improperly

9

asserted privileges and/or produce any documents improperly withheld, consistent with the
directions set forth above.

11

declarations by the same date. By December 16, 2020, ILWU may file objections to specific

12

documents (not categories) and explain how those entries do not comply with this order. DOL may

13

file a response by December 23, 2020. Neither party shall offer further legal argument.
ILWU’s motion is otherwise denied.

15

R NIA

______________________________________
. Ryu
DonnaDonna M
M. Ryu
Judge
United States Magistrate Judge

FO

RT

20

Dated: November 18, 2020

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

NO

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

H

ER

LI

18

UNIT
ED

17

S

16

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21

A

14

DOL shall file its amended privilege log and any supplemental

RT
U
O

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C