Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Grand Canyon Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8164-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On April 6, 2009, this Court granted a motion by Grand Canyon Trust (“the Trust”)

to conduct an in camera review of 13 documents that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(“FWS”) and the Bureau of Reclamation (“the Bureau”) had previously withheld from the

administrative record on grounds of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Dkt. #157. On February 5, 2010, the Court granted another motion by the Trust to conduct

an in camera review of 27 documents FWS had withheld from the administrative record for

the same reasons. Dkt. #212. The Court has received the documents from FWS and the

Bureau, has conducted an in camera review, and concludes that the documents were properly

withheld under the attorney-client privilege.

I. Legal standard.

“‘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.’” U.S. v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting U.S. v. Bauer,

132 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 2007)) (ellipses in original). “The fact that a person is a lawyer

does not make all communications with that person privileged.” U.S. v. Martin, 278 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). The privilege applies when the following

elements are met: “(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal

advisor 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.” Ruehle, 583 F.3d

at 607 (quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 n.2 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

II. Analysis.

A. 13 documents.

1. Background.

On July 23, 2008, the Bureau and FWS produced the administrative record for FWS’s

challenged Biological Opinion and for the Bureau’s actions challenged in Claim 6 of this

litigation. Dkt. ##111, 112. On that date, the Bureau and FWS also filed privilege logs

identifying documents they withheld from the administrative record on grounds of attorneyclient privilege and/or work product. The Trust challenged the privilege logs, and the Court

agreed to conduct in camera review of the withheld documents. Dkt. #157.

2. The documents.

Of the 13 documents that the Court received for review, four have already been

released to the Trust in their entirety (documents 10, 11, 12, 13), three have been released in

redacted form (documents 5, 8, 9), and the remaining six have been withheld (documents 1,

2, 3, 4, 6, 7). As a result, only documents 1-9 are at issue. The Court finds that the Bureau

and FWS properly withheld the unreleased documents and the redacted portions of the

partially released documents.

Document 1, currently unreleased, is an email from Randall Peterson of the Bureau

to Jonne Hower of the Bureau which includes legal advice from attorney Robert Snow. 

Document 2, currently unreleased, is an email from Snow to Peterson in which Snow

provides comments and edits in his capacity as an attorney on draft portions of the FWS 2008

Environmental Assessment which is at issue in this litigation. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Documents 3 and 4, currently unreleased, are emails from Snow to Peterson in which

Snow briefly discusses an attached document. The attached document is a list of comments

made during the public comment period for FWS’s 2008 Environmental Assessment, and

includes legal advice from Snow regarding the legally appropriate responses to each

comment. 

Document 5, released in redacted form, is a fax from Sam Spiller of FWS to Snow and

Justin Tade which includes notes from a conference call in which Snow provided legal

advice. The redacted portion of the document contains a summary of the legal advice given

by Snow during the conference call. 

Documents 6 and 7, currently unreleased, are additional handwritten notes from

Spiller, and contain summaries of legal advice provided by Snow. 

Documents 8 and 9, released in redacted form, are also handwritten notes taken by

Spiller during the conference call. The redacted portions of these documents contain

summaries of legal advice provided by Snow during the call.

3. Conclusion.

The six withheld documents and the redacted portions of the three partially released

documents all contain information that is attorney-client privileged. These documents

contain legal advice from attorney Snow and consist of communications made in confidence

by the client and the attorney. Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607. There is no evidence that the

protection has been waived. The Court finds that the Bureau and FWS properly withheld

these documents. Id.

B. 27 documents.

1. Background.

On December 8, 2009, FWS produced documents constituting the administrative

record for its 2009 Biological Opinion. Dkt. #189. FWS also produced a privilege log

identifying 27 documents that it withheld on grounds of attorney-client privilege and/or work

product. The Trust challenged the privilege logs, and the Court agreed to conduct in camera

review of the withheld documents. Dkt. # 157. Many of the withheld documents are email

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 3 of 6
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 -

strings which contain attachments. FWS has released many of the underlying emails, but has

not released any of the attachments to the emails (documents 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 27). The

Court has conducted an in camera review of all 27 documents and finds that FWS properly

withheld them.

2. The documents.

Document 1, currently unreleased, is an email string between Jay Govindan of the

Department of Justice and attorneys Justin Tade and Robert Snow. The document contains

legal advice and includes a detailed discussion of this Court’s order of May 26, 2009 and the

potential ramifications of that order. The document also contains a copy of the May 26, 2009

order, which, although not privileged, need not be disclosed as it is publicly available. See

Dkt. #172. 

Document 2, currently unreleased, contains the entirety of document 1 and also

includes questions from Glen Knowles of FWS to Tade. These questions and their responses

contain legal discussions and legal advice. 

Document 3, currently unreleased, is a single email from Tade to Govindan and Glen

Knowles of FWS in which Tade discusses his reading of this Court’s order of May 26, 2009

and comments on some legal concerns that he has. 

Document 4, currently unreleased, is an email string that contains the entirety of

document 3 and also includes a detailed legal discussion between Tade, Govindan, and

Knowles of this Court’s May 26, 2009 order, the legal strategy of FWS going forward, and

legal questions from Knowles to Govindan. 

Document 5, currently unreleased, consists of two emails between Govindan and

Tade, in which they discuss the future reworking of the Biological Opinion, how to properly

comply with this Court’s May 26, 2009 order, and a legal strategy for moving forward. 

Document 6, currently unreleased, is an extension of document 4. It contains

document 4 in its entirety and also contains one additional email from Govindan to Knowles,

which contains legal advice as to how to style the 2009 Biological Opinion and how to tackle

certain issues discussed by the Court in its order. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 6
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

 These documents are unreleased with the exception of the first page of document 27,

which FWS has disclosed to the Trust.

- 5 -

Document 7, currently unreleased, is an email exchange between Tade, Steve Spangle

of FWS, Knowles, Snow, and Govindan. In the emails, the parties discuss this Court’s order

of May 26, 2009 and the legal ramifications of portions of the order. The document includes

a copy of the Court’s order which is not privileged, but need not be disclosed because it is

publicly available. See Dkt. #172. 

Document 8, currently unreleased, is an extension of document 6 and contains only

one additional email, which is from Govindan to Knowles, in which Govindan provides legal

advice regarding the drafting of the 2009 Biological Opinion.

Documents 9, 12, and 13, currently unreleased, are draft copies of FWS’s 2009

Biological Opinion from Tade which include edits and comments on how to improve the

Opinion before presenting it to the Court as required in this litigation. 

Documents 10, 11, 14, 15, and 21 contain emails between Tade, Knowles, and others,

and also contain attachments. These emails have been fully released. Dkt. #201 at 2. The

attachments, however, have not been released. The attachments are draft copies of FWS’s

2009 Biological Opinion, similar to those found in documents 9, 12, and 13, and contain

legal edits and comments from Tade.

Documents 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 27, currently unreleased,1

 include emails

between Knowles and Tade, and also include attachments of draft versions of the 2009

Biological Opinion with Tade’s and Knowles’ comments and changes. The emails contain

questions and answers, in the form of legal advice. A few minor portions of the emails do

not involve legal advice and are clearly not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, but

these portions are only pleasantries between the drafters and are irrelevant to the

administrative record. 

Documents 18 and 24, currently unreleased, contain emails between Tade and

Knowles in which Tade provides legal advice to Knowles regarding the 2009 Biological

Opinion and the administrative record.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Document 26 is an email string between Tade, Knowles, Snow, and others which

contains legal advice about the 2009 Biological Opinion. It also contains a draft strategy

paper from FWS, the Bureau, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others.

3. Conclusion.

The withheld documents and the redacted portions of the partially released documents

all contain information that is attorney-client privileged. These documents contain legal

advice from an attorney or attorneys and consist of communications made in confidence by

the client and attorneys. Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607. There is no evidence that the protection

has been waived. The Court finds that the FWS properly withheld these documents.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2010.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 223 Filed 03/09/10 Page 6 of 6