Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-91/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER

This matter came on for hearing on March 12, 2008 on plaintiffs’ motion to compel

production of documents that have been withheld by defendants on various claims of

privilege. Lori Rifkin, Esq. and Sara Norman, Esq. appeared as counsel for plaintiffs. Paul

Mello, Esq., appeared as counsel for defendants. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 21
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

 Additional background relevant to the instant dispute is set forth in this court’s

December 6, 2007 order and need not be repeated herein. 

2

 That request contains thirty-eight separate requests for production of documents,

including requests for documents related to: the implementation of Assembly Bill 900 (AB

900); any projected change in California’s prison population; the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) choice of prison sites for construction of additional

prison beds, buildings to treat or house inmates, and reentry program facilities under various

sections of AB 900, including site surveys and Environmental Impact Reports,

communications from or to local community groups and/or government officials, timetables

for the construction of such beds and progress in meeting the timetables; timetables for

transfers of inmates out of state under AB 900; the CDCR’s ability or inability to hire and/or

retain medical and mental health staff, including analyses of the effect of AB 900 on medical

and mental health staffing levels; studies or analyses of the effect of AB 900 on medical and

mental health care at the prisons; any measures defendants have considered to reduce prison

populations other than the measures in AB 900; contingency plans, other than population

reducing measures, defendants have considered initiating when prisons reach their maximum

capacity; defendants’ determination of the maximum capacity of any prison or the entire

prison system; timetables for obtaining funding to implement AB 900 and defendants’

progress therewith; any consideration of placing limits on the prison population; any

consideration of the effects of sentencing reform, a sentencing commission, and changes in

parole policies on the prison population; specific matters referenced in the Declaration of

Scott Kernan filed in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three judge panel; and

changes or clarifications of parole discharge policies and parole revocation policies. See Ex.

F to Declaration of Michael W. Bien in Support of Joint Statement Regarding Discovery

Dispute, filed October 22, 2007. 

2

BACKGROUND1

The dispute at bar arises in connection with plaintiffs’ first request for production of

documents, served in these proceedings on September 5, 2007.2

 On October 25, 2007,

defendants served responses to plaintiffs’ first document production request. Therein,

defendants interposed several general objections, and they asserted various privileges and

interposed objections to each of the specific requests. See Defendants’ Responses to

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, filed October 26, 2007. 

In a stipulation filed November 2, 2007, the parties agreed to a schedule for rolling

production of responsive, non-privileged documents as well as privilege logs. On December

6, 2007, this court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of

documents withheld pursuant to claims of privilege. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

court issued an oral ruling granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel. A written order followed

on December 7, 2007. On the same day, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in

the alternative, for a stay of this court’s order.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 21
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

 As noted in footnote 1, supra, the complete list of documents in dispute is attached

as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Joint List of Disputed

Documents, filed March 7, 2008. A deliberative process privilege has also been asserted for

many of those documents. Because resolution of the issues related to the deliberative process

3

By order filed December 11, 2007, the three-judge court stayed this court’s order. 

Subsequently, by order filed December 17, 2007, the three-judge court granted defendants

additional time to review and revised their privilege logs and the matter was referred back to

the undersigned for further proceedings thereon. In accordance with that order, by order

filed December 20, 2007, this court directed defendants to serve, inter alia, their revised

privilege logs on or before January 28, 2008. That deadline was subsequently extended. See

Order filed January 30, 2008. Defendants’ final revised privilege logs were filed and served

on February 22, 2008. 

On February 25, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Discovery

Disputes setting forth disputes over defendants’ assertions of deliberative process privilege,

attorney-client privilege, and attorney work-product doctrine. By order filed February 27,

2008, the parties were directed to meet and confer in person concerning all remaining

disputes over all assertions of privilege in defendants’ revised privilege logs with the

exception of the deliberative process privilege and to file thereafter a list of all documents as

to which disputes remain over claims of privilege other than the deliberative process

privilege and, as appropriate, supplemental briefing relevant to any remaining disputes. 

On March 7, 2008, the parties filed a joint list of disputed documents. In that joint

statement, the parties represent that their disputes over claims of privilege other than the

deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work product

doctrine have been resolved. See Joint List of Disputed Documents, filed March 7, 2008, at

5. The list of documents that remain in dispute following the parties’ completion of the

process required by the court’s February 27, 2008 order is attached as Exhibit C to the

Declaration of Sara Norman in Support of Joint List of Disputed Documents, filed March 7,

2008. By this order, the court resolves disputes concerning claims of attorney-client

privilege and attorney work product privilege.3

 Ruling on the parties’ disputes concerning

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 21
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

privilege is deferred pending filing of a joint statement of claims and defenses, defendants

will not be required to produce at time any document for which a claim of deliberative

process privilege has been raised, even if the court has determined that a claim of attorneyclient privilege and/or attorney work product privilege for the same document has not been

sustained. 

4

defendants’ claims of deliberative process privilege is deferred pending filing by the parties

of a joint statement of all claims and defenses as required by this court’s March 24, 2008

order, as said disputes are integrally related to the claims and defenses raised in this action.

ANALYSIS

I. General Principles

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties may

obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense

of any party. . . ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants’ claims of privilege in these

proceedings are governed by principles of federal common law. See Fed. R. Evid. 501; see

also Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d

192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). 

It is well-established that the federal “policy favoring open discovery requires that

privileges must be ‘strictly construed.’” Dowling v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d

423, 425 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting University of Pennsylvania. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189

(1990)). The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that an evidentiary privilege is

not applied “unless it ‘promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for

probative evidence. . . .’” University of Pennsylvania, 493 U.S. at 198 (quoting Trammel v.

United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980). “Inasmuch as ‘[t]estimonial exclusionary rules and

privileges contravene the fundamental principles that “the public . . . has a right to every

man’s evidence,”’ id. at 50 [internal citation omitted], any such privilege must ‘be strictly

construed.’ 445 U.S. at 50.” University of Pennsylvania, id.

Rule 26(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable

under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to

protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the

claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents,

communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 4 of 21
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

5

that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected,

will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the

privilege or protection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5)(A). 

The specific “nature” of the notice required by Rule 26(b)(5) “is explicitly left

indeterminate.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of

Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005). “‘The rule does not attempt to define for each

case what information must be provided when a party asserts a claim of privilege or work

product protection.’” Id. at 1147-48 (quoting Rule 26(b)(5) advisory committee’s note (1993

Amendments). However, it is clear that “the ‘party must . . . provide sufficient information

to enable other parties to evaluate the applicability of the claimed privilege or protection.’” 

Id. at 1148 (quoting Rule 26(b)(5) advisory committee note (1993 Amendments). 

In Burlington Northern, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set

forth several factors that a court is to consider in determining whether a particular assertion

of privilege satisfies the requirements of Rule 26(a)(5)(A): 

the degree to which the objection or assertion of privilege enables

the litigant seeking discovery and the court to evaluate whether

each of the withheld documents is privileged (where providing

particulars typically contained in a privilege log is presumptively

sufficient and boilerplate objections are presumptively

insufficient); the timeliness of the objection and accompanying

information about the withheld documents (where service within

30 days, as a default guideline, is sufficient); the magnitude of the

document production; and other particular circumstances of the

litigation that make responding to discovery unusually easy (such

as, here, the fact that many of the same documents were the

subject of discovery in an earlier action) or unusually hard. These

factors should be applied in the context of a holistic

reasonableness analysis, intended to forestall needless waste of

time and resources, as well as tactical manipulation of the rules

and the discovery process. They should not be applied as a

mechanistic determination of whether the information is provided

in a particular format. Finally, the application of these factors

shall be subject to any applicable local rules, agreements or

stipulations among the litigants, and discovery or protective

orders.

Id. at 1149.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 5 of 21
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

 Rule 26(b)(5)(B) makes provision for return of material produced in discovery that

is subject to a colorable claim of privilege:

(B) Information Produced. If information produced in discovery

is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as

trial-preparation material, the party making the claim may notify

any party that received the information of the claim and the basis

for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return,

sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it

has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is

resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if

the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly

present the information to the court under seal for a

determination of the claim. The producing party must preserve

the information until the claim is resolved.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). In addition, the parties have entered into a “clawback”

agreement that provides for the return of privileged material produced during discovery. See

Ex. O to Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of

Documents, filed November 30, 2007.

6

Defendants have the burden of proving application of the asserted privileges. See In

re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992) (attorney client privilege);

Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C.Cir. 1980)

(attorney work product).4

 

II. Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney client privilege protects what a client tells a lawyer. The privilege

encourages full disclosure between lawyer and client, so that the lawyer may give informed

legal advice. Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The privilege has eight essential elements: “(1) [w]here legal advice of any kind is sought (2)

from a professional legal advisor in his [or her] capacity as such, (3) the communications

relating to the purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his [or her]

instance permanently protected, (7) from disclosure by him [or her] self or by the legal

advisor, (8) unless the protection be waived.” Admiral Ins. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of

Ariz., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing In re Fischel, 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir.

1977). 

Several options for establishing the existence of the attorney-client privilege are

available. See Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1989). In the instant case,

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 6 of 21
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

5

 Four of the documents have a claim of deliberative process privilege raised in

addition to the claim of attorney work product doctrine: E00001100 (attorney-client and

attorney work product); E00003041 (attorney-client and attorney work product); E00007081

(attorney-client); and E00084734 (attorney-client).

7

defendants rely in the first instance on the February 22, 2008 privilege logs. To make an

adequate showing of attorney-client privilege, a privilege log “should identify: (a) the

attorney and client involved; (b) the nature of the document (i.e., letter, memorandum); (c) all

persons or entities shown on the document to have received or sent the document; (d) all

persons or entities known . . . to have been furnished the document or informed of its

substance; and (e) the date the document was generated, prepared or dated.” Dole, at 888

n.3, 890. 

Plaintiffs raise three separate challenges to claims of privilege for specific documents

identified in the privilege logs. For the first group of documents, plaintiffs contend that the

privilege logs do not identify any attorney as either an author or a recipient of the specified

documents. For the second group of documents, plaintiffs contend that the privilege log

shows that an outsider to the attorney-client relationship was a recipient of the documents at

issue. Finally, for the majority of documents at issue plaintiffs contend that it appears that an

attorney was copied on a document that is not privileged.

The court has conducted an in camera review of all of the documents in dispute. See,

e.g., U.S. v. Zolin, 842 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1988) (“In the Ninth Circuit the rules of

evidence with respect to privileges do allow for in camera review: a court undertakes in

camera review of documents to decide whether the attorney-client privilege even exists with

respect to those documents.”) 

Fourteen documents are challenged by plaintiffs on the ground that the privilege logs do not

identify an attorney as either an author or a recipient of said documents, as follows: E00000613;

E00001100; E00003041; E00003179; E00007081; E00014065; E00022699; E00028654;

E00044198; E00045366; E00046768; E00084734; E00095838; and E00099404.

5

 In camera

review of the fourteen documents reveals the following.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 7 of 21
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

 In an e:mail from Samantha Tama to Lori Rifkin and Sara Norman, defendants

assert that document E00014065 is a communication between Lisa Tillman, an attorney, and

Doug McKeever, Michael Barks, and Robin Dezember, all non-attorneys. See Ex. A to

Declaration of Samantha Tama in Support of Defendants’ Position Regarding Discovery

Dispute, filed March 7, 2008. Defendants further assert that document E00022699 is a

communication between Molly Arnold, an attorney, and Vince Brown and Jaci-Marie

Thompson, both non-attorneys. Id. Those assertions are not confirmed by review of the

document, nor is there any evidence in the record to support the assertions. Ms. Tama’s

e:mail is not verified, and her declaration verifies only that the e:mail was sent, not the truth

of the matters contained therein. 

8

For five documents in this category, E00001100, E00007081, E00014065,

E00022699, and E00084734, in camera review does not show that an attorney was either an

author or a recipient of the document.6

 For that reason, defendants have not met their burden

of establishing that these documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

Defendants will be required to produce at this time documents E00014065 and E00022699,

as no claim of deliberative process privilege has been raised for either of those documents. 

Defendants will not be required to produce documents E00001100, E00007081 or

E00084734 at this time due to pending claims of deliberative process privilege. 

For the remaining nine documents, in camera review does show that an attorney was

either an author or a recipient of the document at issue. However, after in camera review of

each of the documents the court finds that none of them constitute communications of the

type protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants will be required to produce eight

of these documents at this time. See Attachment A to this Order. The ninth, E00003041, is

also subject to a claim of deliberative process privilege. For that reason, defendants will not

be required to produce that document at this time.

Ten documents are challenged by plaintiffs on the ground that the privilege log shows

an outsider to the attorney-client relationship included as either an author or a recipient of the

document, as follows: E00020277; E00020512; E00045948; E00046983; E00046988;

E00046989; E00082860; E00083812; E00099569; and E00099573.

For documents E00020277, E00099569 and E00099573, defendants have raised a

claim of deliberative process privilege raised in addition to the claim of attorney-client

privilege. After in camera review, the court finds that all of these documents have outsiders

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 8 of 21
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

7

 In the e:mail from Samantha Tama described in footnote 5, supra, defendants

contend that document E00020512 is a privileged communication between Deborah Cregger,

staff counsel with the California Department of Finance (DOF), and Stephen Benson and Jim

Martone, budget analysts with DOF. Defendants do not explain the discrepancy between this

contention and the privilege log entry for this document. In addition, in the same e:mail

defendants for the first time assert a deliberative process privilege for document E00020512. 

The assertion of the deliberative process privilege for this document is untimely and will not

be considered by this court. 

9

to the attorney-client privilege identified as authors or recipients and, therefore that the claim

of attorney-client privilege is not sustained. However, the documents will not be produced at

this time pending resolution of the claims of deliberative process privilege. 

 The privilege log identifies a California state senator and a California assemblyman as

the author of document E000205127

; and a woman named Susan Turner of an organization

called the Center of Evidence-Based Corrections as the recipient of documents E00045948

and E00046989 and the author of documents E00046983 and E00046988. Each of these

individuals are outsiders to any attorney-client relationship between defendants and their

attorneys. For that reason, defendants’ claim of privilege for these documents cannot be

sustained. Defendants will be required to produce these documents.

 The last two documents are e:mail exchanges between Joan Petersilia, Ph.D. and

Benjamin Rice. Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Petersilia is a professor at University of

California Irvine who works as an independent contractor for defendants. Defendants

identify Dr. Petersilia as part of the Governor’s Office as the current chair of the

Rehabilitation Strike Team. (Preliminary Names List, filed April 14, 2008, at 25.) The

document does not contain any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

Defendants will be required to produce these documents.

The final, and largest, group of documents are those which plaintiffs contend an

attorney was copied on a non-privileged document. The court’s findings after in camera

review with respect to the applicability of the attorney-client privilege for each of these

documents are set forth on the list attached to this order. Defendants will be required to

produce at this time all documents for which a claim of attorney client privilege is not

sustained and for which no claim of deliberative process privilege has been made. 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 9 of 21
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

10

III. Attorney Work Product Doctrine

“The work product doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Hackman v.

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 26(b)(3), which

substantially codifies the Hickman decision, provides in relevant part:

[A] party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things

otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and

prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another

party or by or for that other party’s representative (including the

other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or

agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has

substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party’s

case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain

the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In

ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing

has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the

mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an

attorney or other representative of a party concerning the

litigation.

The primary purpose of the work product rule is to ‘prevent exploitation of a party’s efforts

in preparing for litigation.’ Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States District Court, 881 F.2d 1486,

1494 (9th Cir.1989). Like the discovery process that it limits, the work product doctrine

encourages efficient development of facts and issues.” Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto

Insurance Co., 976 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).

Defendants have claimed attorney work product protection for twenty-five of the

documents for which claims of attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product

protection are resolved by this order. After in camera review, this court finds that one or

both claims of privilege are valid for six of those documents: E00009615; E00021166;

E00028419; E00028420; E00096636; and E00096637. For the remaining nineteen

documents, the court finds that defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that

the documents are entitled to protection as attorney work product. Defendants will be

ordered to produce those documents. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five business

days from the date of this order, defendants shall produce to counsel for plaintiffs for

inspection and copying all documents listed in Attachment A to this order, which are all

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 10 of 21
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

11

documents for which neither a claim of attorney-client privilege nor a claim of attorney-work

product doctrine has been established and for which no claim of deliberative process

privilege has been made.

Dated: April 14, 2008.

12

discovery19.o

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 11 of 21
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

12

ATTACHMENT A

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER-- CLAIM OF

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

PROTECTION NOT SUSTAINED

A) No attorney listed as author or recipient in privilege logs

E00000613

E00003179

E00014065

E00022699

E00028654

E00044198

E00045366

E00046768

E00099404

B) Outsider to the attorney-client relationship included as author or recipient in privilege

logs

E00020512

E00045948

E00046983

E00046988

E00046989

E00082860

E00083812

C) Attorney(s) copied on apparently non-privileged communication

E00000270

E00000271

E00000374

E00001408

E00001409

E00001575

E00003172

E00003174

E00003177

E00003178

E00004350

E00004351

E00005322

E00006393

E00006394

E00009517

E00009518

E00009599

E00011245

E00012401

E00012402

E00012403

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 12 of 21
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

13

E00012405

E00012406

E00014163

E00016330

E00017356 

E00017357

E00017358

E00017359

E00017360

E00017361

E00017362

E00017388

E00017389

E00017390

E00017391

E00018099

E00018113

E00018116

E00018117

E00018118

E00018119

E00018120

E00018121

E00018122

E00018123

E00018140

E00018141

E00018142

E00018143

E00018144

E00018244

E00018506

E00019023

E00019024

E00019025

E00019066

E00019084

E00019498

E00019559

E00019560

E00019809

E00020511

E00020819

E00022591

E00022592

E00022593

E00022594

E00022595

E00022596

E00022597

E00027889

E00028440

E00028650

E00028651

E00028797

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 13 of 21
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

14

E00028798

E00028948

E00028979

E00029552

E00029553

E00029624

E00029625

E00029626

E00029627

E00029628

E00030167

E00030168

E00030169

E00030171

E00030571

E00030572

E00030573

E00030574

E00030575

E00030576

E00030577

E00030578

E00030579

E00031150

E00031163

E00031493

E00031495

E00031557

E00037576

E00038348

E00038456

E00038460

E00038514

E00043945

E00044197

E00044272

E00044398

E00044618

E00044619

E00044620

E00044626

E00044666

E00044710

E00044737

E00044749

E00044875

E00044886

E00045424

E00045431

E00045436

E00045537

E00045608

E00045808

E00045983

E00046148

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 14 of 21
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

15

E00046160

E00046161

E00046166

E00046168

E00046382

E00046460

E00046461

E00046462

E00046463

E00046464

E00046768

E00047050

E00047071

E00047253

E00047256

E00047271

E00047414

E00047453

E00047456

E00047489

E00047512

E00047820

E00048004

E00048065

E00048389

E00048391

E00048434

E00048482

E00048490

E00048505

E00048579 

E00048639

E00048791

E00048823

E00049365

E00050188

E00082874

E00083483

E00084265

E00084266

E00084267

E00084268

E00084293

E00084308

E00084449

E00084450

E00084453

E00084455

E00084456

E00084574

E00084575

E00084576

E00084577

E00085017

E00085393

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 15 of 21
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

16

E00085765

E00085795

E00085825

E00085920

E00085921

E00085956

E00085983

E00095838

E00096367

E00096452

E00096622

E00097040

E00097579

E00097584

E00099273

E00099500

E00099501

E00099502

E00099503

E00099504

E00099505

E00099506

E00099507

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 16 of 21
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

17

ATTACHMENT B

DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH CLAIM OF ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IS SUSTAINED

A) No attorney listed as author or recipient in privilege logs

B) Outsider to the attorney-client relationship included as author or recipient in privilege

logs

C) Attorney(s) copied on apparently non-privileged communication

E00002038

E00003064

E00004631

E00004924

E00004925

E00006313

E00006586

E00006635

E00006636

E00006744

E00007081

E00007093

E00009614

E00009615

E00017097

E00018126

E00018527

E00018528

E00018529

E00018543

E00018544

E00018545

E00018916

E00019562

E00019731

E00019861

E00019942

E00020198

E00020358

E00020588

E00020592

E00020601

E00020617

E00020632

E00020633

E00020713

E00020760

E00021166

E00021344

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 17 of 21
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

18

E00022235

E00022236

E00022237

E00022238

E00022239

E00022240

E00022241

E00022242

E00022243

E00022252

E00022253

E00022254

E00022255

E00022256

E00022257

E00028159

E00028419

E00028420

E00028434

E00028438

E00028439

E00028537

E00028551

E00028552

E00028553

E00028649

E00028945

E00028947

E00031164

E00031165

E00031166

E00031167

E00031168

E00031169

E00038455

E00038459

E00044895

E00045364

E00045506

E00046070

E00046542

E00046904

E00047818

E00048105

E00048109

E00048408

E00048410

E00048412

E00048570

E00048571

E00048572

E00048578

E00048670

E00048672

E00048673

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 18 of 21
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

19

E00048696

E00082927

E00084360

E00084734

E00085397

E00085449

E00085450

E00085463

E00085464

E00085465

E00085503

E00086978

E00095859

E00096636

E00096637

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 19 of 21
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

20

ATTACHMENT C

DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH CLAIM OF ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION NOT SUSTAINED -- NOT TO BE

PRODUCED AT THIS TIME DUE TO PENDING CLAIM OF DELIBERATIVE

PROCESS PRIVILEGE 

A) No attorney listed as author or recipient in privilege logs

E00001100

E00003041

E00007081

B) Outsider to the attorney-client relationship included as author or recipient in privilege

logs

E00020277

E00099569

E00099573

C) Attorney(s) copied on apparently non-privileged communication

E00000375

E00000376

E00000377

E00000847

E00000848

E00001099

E00001109

E00001111

E00001145

E00001146

E00001147

E00001702

E00001703

E00001751

E00001752

E00002005

E00002088

E00002111

E00002637

E00002638

E00002639

E00002640

E00002641

E00002642

E00002643

E00002644

E00002645

E00002646

E00002647

E00006745

E00006756

E00007103

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 20 of 21
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

21

E00007104

E00007105

E00007106

E00007126

E00007127

E00007128

E00007129

E00016045

E00018112

E00020680

E00033095

E00033437

E00033442

E00033445

E00033447

E00033514

E00033515

E00033516

E00033517

E00033519

E00033520

E00033521

E00033522

E00084461

E00084741

E00085018

E00085021

E00085022

E00085983

E00086783

E00086968

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1160 Filed 04/14/08 Page 21 of 21