Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

DELTA SMELT CONSOLIDATED 

CASES 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA 

WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v. 

SALAZAR, et al. 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

SALAZAR, et al. 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE 

DELTA, et al. v. UNITED 

STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 

v. UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. 

STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS et 

al. v. UNITED STATES FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 

1:09-CV-1053 OWW DLB 

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 

FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 A June 21, 2010 Memorandum Decision and Order 

required Federal Defendants to lodge thirteen documents 

under seal (Documents 1-9 and 60-63) for the Court’s in 

camera review, to determine whether Federal Defendants 

properly asserted the attorney-client privilege as to 

each document. Docket 401. The documents were lodged on 

June 28, 2010. Docket 408. 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 411 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 2 

 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The Ninth Circuit recently articulated the relevant 

standard in United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607-08 

(9th Cir. 2009): 

“The attorney-client privilege protects 

confidential disclosures made by a client to an 

attorney in order to obtain legal advice, ... as 

well as an attorney's advice in response to such 

disclosures.” [United States v.] Bauer, 132 

F.3d [504,] 507 [9th Cir. 1997] (quoting United 

States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 

1996)) (emphasis omitted). “The fact that a 

person is a lawyer does not make all 

communications with that person privileged.” 

United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (citing Chen, 99 F.3d at 1501). 

“Because it impedes full and free discovery of 

the truth, the attorney-client privilege is 

strictly construed.” Id. (quoting Weil v. 

Inv./Indicators, Research & Mgmt., Inc., 647 

F.2d 18, 24 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord United 

States v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 

1990). “[T]he privilege stands in derogation of 

the public's ‘right to every man's evidence’ and 

as ‘an obstacle to the investigation of the 

truth,’ [and] thus, ... ‘[i]t ought to be 

strictly confined within the narrowest possible 

limits consistent with the logic of its 

principle.’” In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 81 

(2d Cir.1973) (citations omitted). Typically, 

an eight-part test determines whether 

information is covered by the attorney-client 

privilege: 

 

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought 

(2) from a professional legal adviser in his 

capacity as such, (3) the communications 

relating to that purpose, (4) made in 

confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his 

instance permanently protected (7) from 

disclosure by himself or by the legal 

adviser, (8) unless the protection be 

waived. 

 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 411 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 3 

 

 

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 

1071 n. 2 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting United States 

v. Margolis (In re Fischel), 557 F.2d 209, 211 

(9th Cir. 1977)). The party asserting the 

privilege bears the burden of proving each 

essential element. United States v. Munoz, 233 

F.3d 1117, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 

(Footnote omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Documents 1-9. 

 These documents consist entirely of comments and 

edits to various portions of the 2009 NMFS Biological 

Opinion (“BiOp”) made by NOAA counsel, Melanie Rowland. 

These comments were communicated to co-counsel and staff 

at NMFS. They contain confidential legal advice from Ms. 

Rowland on issues raised by the BiOp. There is no 

suggestion that the attorney-client privilege has been 

waived as to these documents, nor is there any way that 

non-privileged portions of the material could be 

disclosed without disclosure of privileged material. 

 It is of no moment that Federal Defendants conceded 

in the McInnis Declaration, Doc. 227-2 ¶7, that not all 

of these comment were incorporated into the final draft 

of the BiOp, as there is no requirement that the advice 

of counsel be accepted for such advice to be privileged. 

 These documents were properly withheld under the 

attorney-client privilege. 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 411 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 4
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 

 4 

 

 

B. Documents 60-63. 

 These documents consist of notes from meetings 

between NMFS staff (clients) and counsel at NOAA and 

emails following up on issues raised by counsel. These 

documents discuss confidential legal advice from counsel 

on issues raised by the BiOp. As with Documents 1-9, 

there is no suggestion that the attorney-client privilege 

has been waived as to these documents, nor would it be 

possible to segregate non-privileged portions of the 

material from privileged material. 

 These documents were properly withheld under the 

attorney-client privilege. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Documents 1-9 and 60-63 were properly withheld under 

the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs’ motion to 

supplement the administrative record with these documents 

is DENIED. 

 

 

SO ORDERED 

 

Dated: June 30, 2010 

 

 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 411 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 4