Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 394

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 364 Motion to Compel Documents Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege. Because the Defendants' current production does not permit Plaintiffs or the Court to assess Defe ndants' privilege claims, after Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with a list of Requests for Production ordered by priority, Defendants are ORDERED to begin responding to each Request. On December 10, 2019 at 4 p.m., the Parties will meet with the Court to begin assessing Defendants' privilege claims by individual Requests for Production. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

RYAN KARNOSKI et al.,
Plaintiffs, and

11
12

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
13

16
17

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD
UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

14
15

CASE NO. C17-1297 MJP

v.
DONALD J TRUMP et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Compel

21

Documents Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege. (Dkt. No. 364.) Having

22

reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 380), the Reply (Dkt. No. 385), and all related

23

papers, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion.

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 1

1

Background

2

I.

3

Plaintiffs allege that the creation and implementation of Defendants’ ban on transgender

Requested Discovery

4

military service (the “Ban”) is unconstitutional. (See Dkt. No. 347, Second Amended Complaint

5

(“SAC”).) The Ban began with the July 26, 2017 Twitter announcement by President Donald J.

6

Trump of a prohibition against military service by openly transgender people, which reversed the

7

(former) Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s Directive-type Memorandum 16-005 (the “Carter

8

Policy”) providing that transgender people would be allowed to accede into the military not later

9

than July 1, 2017. (Dkt. No. 144, Ex. C at 5; Dkt. No. 145 at ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 146 at ¶ 8.) The

10

announcement of the Ban was followed by the “Mattis Plan”—then-Secretary of Defense James

11

Mattis’s strategy for implementing the President’s new policy—and the President’s March 23,

12

2018 Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense (“DoD”) to implement the

13

Ban. (Dkt. No. 224, Ex. 3.)

14

Plaintiffs seek discovery to substantiate their allegations that the Ban was not animated

15

by independent military judgment but was instead the product of impermissible discriminatory

16

intent. (Dkt. No. 364 at 6.) To this end, Plaintiffs have served 68 Requests for Production,

17

which seek, among other things, documents related to the Government’s justifications for the

18

Ban; communications and materials considered by the “Panel of Experts” (the “Panel”), and

19

statistics and data regarding transgender military service. (Dkt. No. 364.) Defendants have

20

produced documents without responding to individual Requests for Production, producing

21

documents as stored in the ordinary course of business by creating and searching lists of terms

22

and custodians—without input from Plaintiffs—and then reviewing the collections for privilege.

23

(Dkt. No. 381, Ex. 1, Declaration of Robert E. Easton (“Easton Decl.”), ¶ 5.)

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 2

1

II.

Procedural History

2

On July 27, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ previous Motion to Compel Discovery

3

Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege. (Dkt. No. 245; Dkt. No. 299). In reaching

4

its conclusion, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ interest in the documents prevailed under the

5

balancing test set forth in FTC v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984),

6

which weighs: “(1) the relevance of the evidence; (2) the availability of other evidence; (3) the

7

government’s role in the litigation; and (4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and

8

independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions.” Id.

9

Defendants appealed, and on June 14, 2019 the Ninth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus,

10

vacating this Court’s Order. Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2019). The Ninth

11

Circuit approved of the Court’s reliance on Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161, and found that the second

12

and third Warner factors—the availability of other evidence and the government’s role in the

13

litigation—favor Plaintiffs. Karnoski, 926 F.3d at 1206. Regarding the first and fourth Warner

14

factors, however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “the current record is insufficient to establish

15

relevance” and the fourth factor in particular “deserves careful consideration, because the

16

military’s interest in full and frank communication about policymaking raises serious—although

17

not insurmountable—national defense interests.” Id. The Ninth Circuit suggested that on

18

remand this Court should “consider classes of documents separately when appropriate” and, “[i]f

19

Defendants persuasively argue that a more granular analysis would be proper, [the Court] should

20

undertake it.” Id.

21

To date, Defendants have asserted the deliberative process privilege as a basis for

22

withholding or redacting more than 50,000 responsive documents, and as the sole basis for

23

withholding or redacting approximately 35,000 responsive documents. (Dkt. No. 364 at 6.) In

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 3

1

the instant motion, Plaintiffs again seek to compel documents withheld under the deliberative

2

process privilege, suggesting nine broad categories, meant to encompass the 68 Requests for

3

Production, through which the Court can evaluate the withheld documents. (Dkt. No. 364 at

4

10-12; Dkt. No. 365, Exs. 1-3.)

5

III.

Doe Opinion

6

On September 13, 2019, in a related case, Doe 2 v. Esper, No. CV 17-1597 (CKK), 2019

7

WL 4394842, at *8 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of

8

Columbia concluded that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to documents that

9

were used or considered in the development of the Mattis Plan. The Doe court found that “the

10

deliberative process privilege should not be used to shield discovery into Defendants’

11

decision-making process and intent when the extent and scope of that decision-making process is

12

a central issue in this lawsuit.” Id. at *7. The court further found that the plaintiffs’ need for the

13

requested documents outweighed the deliberative process privilege, using a balancing test not

14

unlike the one described in Warner, 742 F.2d at 1161. Id. at *8 (citing In re Sealed Case, 121

15

F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Pursuant to the Doe court’s ruling, Defendants will produce

16

documents from three of the categories Plaintiffs seek to compel in this case: Panel

17

Communications; Testimony, Documents, and Data the Panel Received; and Panel Deliberations

18

and Decisions. (Dkt. No. 389 at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 364 at 7).)

19

Discussion

20

I.

Legal Standards

21

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to conduct discovery into “any

22

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FRCP 26(b)(1). The

23

Rules authorize parties to discover material which is likely to be inadmissible at trial, so long as

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 4

1

the requested information “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

2

evidence.” Id. “[V]irtually any document not privileged may be discovered by the appropriate

3

litigant, if it is relevant to his litigation . . . .” N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132,

4

149 (1975). The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why discovery should

5

be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975).

6

The deliberative process privilege protects documents and materials which would reveal

7

“advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which

8

governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” N.L.R.B., 421 U.S. at 150. For the

9

privilege to apply, a document must be (1) “predecisional,” meaning that it was “generated

10

before the adoption of an agency’s policy or decision,” and (2) “deliberative,” meaning that it

11

contains “opinions, recommendations, or advice about agency policies.” Warner, 742 F.2d at

12

1161. “Purely factual material that does not reflect deliberative processes is not protected.” Id.

13

II.

Privilege Assessment

14

On the current record, the Court finds no avenue for evaluating Defendants’ privilege

15

assertions within the framework of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance. Defendants have asserted the

16

deliberative process privilege over 35,000 responsive documents, a volume that prevents the

17

Court from evaluating documents on an individual basis. (Dkt. No. 364 at 6.) Further, the Court

18

cannot evaluate Defendants’ privilege assertions by individual Requests for Production because

19

Defendants produced documents as kept in the ordinary course of business, without responding

20

to individual Requests. (Easton Decl., ¶ 5.) Finally, Plaintiffs suggest the Court should evaluate

21

privilege assertions based on nine overarching categories of documents meant to encompass all

22

68 Requests for Production, but, as Defendants note, these proposed categories are too broad to

23

be meaningful. (Dkt. No. 364 at 10-12; Dkt. No. 380 at 6-7.)

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 5

1

Defendants’ current production is therefore insufficient, as it does not allow Plaintiffs or

2

the Court to assess Defendants’ privilege claims, FRCP 26(b)(5)(ii), or conduct the type of

3

“granular analysis” suggested by the Ninth Circuit, Karnoski, 926 F.3d at 1206. Thus, the

4

Parties must take several actions before the Court can review Defendants’ privilege assertions:

5

1) Defendants must produce their complete list of custodians and search terms within

6

seven (7) days of the date of this Order;

7

2) Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a list of Requests for Production, sorted by

8

order of priority, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs may also

9

provide Defendants with a list of additional custodians and search terms. Plaintiffs

10

are encouraged to coordinate with counsel in the other active cases concerning the

11

Ban, in order to consolidate and prioritize the Requests for Production;

12

3) Once the Plaintiffs have provided their list of Requests for Production by order of

13

priority, the Government must begin responding to each Request, consulting with

14

Plaintiff to apply additional search terms or search additional custodians.

15

This Court will adopt the reasoning and conclusions of the Doe court concerning

16

documents related to the Mattis plan. Doe, 2019 WL 4394842, at *5-10. Whether Defendants

17

may assert the privilege over documents related to the Carter Policy remains an open question

18

that the Court will address upon a motion by the Plaintiffs. In December, the Parties and the

19

Court will begin reviewing Defendants’ privilege assertions by individual Requests for

20

Production, beginning with the first five prioritized Requests.

21
22
23

Conclusion
Because the Defendants’ current production does not permit Plaintiffs or the Court to
assess Defendants’ privilege claims, after Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with a list of

24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 6

1

Requests for Production ordered by priority, Defendants are ORDERED to begin responding to

2

each Request. On December 10, 2019 at 4 p.m., the Parties will meet with the Court to begin

3

assessing Defendants’ privilege claims by individual Requests for Production.

4
5
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
6
Dated November 19, 2019.
7
8
9

A
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS PRIVILEGE - 7