Exxon Mobil Corporation et al v. Mnuchin et al

Filing 76

Memorandum Opinion and Order re: 49 Objections. The objections by Defendants to the Magistrate Judge's Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court's Orders are OVERRULED. Defendants are ORDERED to comply with the Magistrate Judge's Order 66 , and must produce the documents described therein to Plaintiffs by 5:00 p.m. on 7/15/2019. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/8/2019) (epm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;
EXXONMOBIL DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY; and EXXONMOBIL OIL
CORPORATION,

§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
v.
§
§
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official
§
capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
§
Department of the Treasury; ANDREA M. §
GACKI, in her official capacity as the
§
Director of the U.S. Department of Foreign §
Assets Control; and the U.S.
§
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY’S
§
OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS
§
CONTROL,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1930-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court’s Orders (Doc. 49). Doc. 66, Order.
Defendants have filed objections to the order, arguing that the order is deficient in three principle
ways:
First, it committed an error of law by concluding that the documents described at
privilege log entry numbers 30, 37, 57, 78, 126, 146, and 148 were not protected
under the deliberative process privilege based on the incorrect legal conclusion that
drafts and summaries are not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Second,
it committed an error of fact by using the wrong agency decision to determine that
the documents described at privilege log entry numbers 3, 4, and 5 were not
predecisional, and thus not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Third, it
committed errors of law and fact in reaching its conclusion—unsupported by any
factual findings or analysis—that the decisions at issue in the documents described
at privilege log entry numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 25 were not
-1-

“important” enough for their disclosure to risk injury to the quality of agency
decisions. . . . [The order] also failed entirely to consider an agency declaration
explaining the documents’ importance.
Doc. 71, Defs.’ Objections, 6. The Court now reviews Defendants’ objections.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a district judge to set aside or modify a nondispositive pretrial order issued by a magistrate judge if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). That means the district judge reviews the magistrate judge’s factual
findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 806
(5th Cir. 2014).
Here, the Court has reviewed the opinion of the Magistrate Judge and finds no clear error
in the factual findings and, on de novo review, no error in the legal conclusions. Accordingly, the
objections by Defendants to the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court’s Orders are OVERRULED.
Defendants are ORDERED to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 66), and
must produce the documents described therein to Plaintiffs by 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2019.

SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: July 8, 2019.
______________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-