Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 487

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE IN CAMERA PRIVILEGE REVIEW RE DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS NON-RESPONSIVE (DKT. NOS. 449 , 455 , 464 . The Court ORDERS Defendants to produce by May 1, 2020: (1) the root documents to which the claimed p rivileged family documents were attached, and (2) a revised privilege log that includes the document number of the root document and the corresponding document number of the family documents submitted for in camera review. The privilege log sh ould also include the PrivWithhold page ranges of the documents submitted for in camera review. Further, any future privilege logs for documents withheld based upon an assertion of privilege will contain a column designated PrivWithold which will identify the page range of any documents withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 487 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 3

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,

11
12
13
14

v.
DONALD J TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. C17-1297 MJP
ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO
COMPLETE IN CAMERA
PRIVILEGE REVIEW RE
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS
NON-RESPONSIVE (DKT. NOS.
449, 455, 464)

15
16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendants’ submission of

17

documents for in camera review following the Court’s March 17, 2020 Order granting the

18

Parties’ agreed Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 464, 467.) Finding that

19

Defendants’ submissions make the Court’s in camera review unnecessarily difficult, the Court

20

ORDERS Defendants to file the following documents by May 1, 2020:

21

(1) The “root” documents to which the claimed privileged family documents were attached;

22

(2) A privilege log that contains the document number of the root document, matching it

23

with the corresponding document number of the family documents submitted for in

24
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE IN CAMERA PRIVILEGE REVIEW
RE DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS NON-RESPONSIVE (DKT. NOS. 449, 455, 464) - 1

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 487 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 3

1

camera review. This log will also contain the corresponding “PrivWithhold” page ranges

2

of the documents submitted for in camera review.

3
4

Background
On March 4, 2020 the Court ordered Defendants to produce documents withheld on the

5

grounds of “non-responsiveness” which are part of an otherwise responsive “family group” of

6

produced material; e.g., Defendants produced a responsive email, but withheld attachments to the

7

email on grounds of “non-responsiveness.” (Dkt. No. 455 at 3.) On March 13, 2020, the

8

Defendants submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, informing the Court that “during the course

9

of preparing these non-responsive family documents for production, Defendants have discovered

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

that a small subset of the documents are subject to privilege.” (Dkt. No. 463 at 2.) The Court
granted the Motion, clarifying that Defendants are not required to produce privileged documents.
(Dkt. No. 464.) To evaluate the Defendants’ new privilege claims, the Court ordered Defendants
to produce privilege logs describing each and every privilege asserted and an explanation for
why the Defendants believe each privilege applies. (Id. at 2.) The Court also ordered
Defendants to produce the privileged documents for in camera review. (Id.)
The Court now finds that Defendants’ privilege log and production lack certain

17

information to facilitate in camera review. (Dkt. Nos. 465, 467.) In reviewing the family group

18

of documents submitted for in camera review, the Court has discovered that Defendants failed to

19

produce the underlying root document to which the family documents were attached. Thus, the

20

Court is unable to conduct a complete review of the issue of compliance and privilege review. In

21

addition, each page of the family documents submitted for in camera review bears a sequentially

22

numbered “Priv.Withhold” page number. However, the privilege log does not contain a column

23
24
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE IN CAMERA PRIVILEGE REVIEW
RE DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS NON-RESPONSIVE (DKT. NOS. 449, 455, 464) - 2

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 487 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 3

1

with a “PrivWithhold” page range. Because the privilege log is 57 pages long, the lack of

2

reference to the sequential “PrivWithhold” page range makes review unduly difficult.

3
4

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to produce by May 1, 2020: (1) the “root”

5

documents to which the claimed privileged family documents were attached, and (2) a revised

6

privilege log that includes the document number of the root document and the corresponding

7

document number of the family documents submitted for in camera review. The privilege log

8

should also include the “PrivWithhold” page ranges of the documents submitted for in camera

9

review. Further, any future privilege logs for documents withheld based upon an assertion of

10

privilege will contain a column designated “PrivWithold” which will identify the page range of

11

any documents withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege.

12
13
14

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

15

Dated April 23, 2020.

17

A

18

Marsha J. Pechman
Senior United States District Judge

16

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COMPLETE IN CAMERA PRIVILEGE REVIEW
RE DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS NON-RESPONSIVE (DKT. NOS. 449, 455, 464) - 3