Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JANE DOE 1, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD)

ORDER RE FEBRUARY 18, 2020 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 280

The parties dispute whether defendants may claw back from their document production a 

document (DEF-13914–DEF-13918) that includes a term defendants say is subject to the law 

enforcement privilege. Dkt. No. 280. Defendants argue that their disclosure of the unredacted 

document was inadvertent and that the Court has already decided that the law enforcement 

privilege applies because the document at issue is identical to document DEF-1934–DEF-1938,

one of the documents considered in the Court’s September 6, 2019 order (see Dkt. No. 223). Id. at 

3–5. Plaintiffs argue that defendants waived the privilege by producing the document without 

redacting the disputed term or claiming privilege for it, and by permitting the document to be used 

during depositions without objection. Id. at 6–7. 

Having considered the parties’ submissions and counsel’s arguments at the hearing on this 

matter, the Court concludes that defendants waived whatever privilege may have attached to the 

disputed term when they permitted the document—and the disputed term in particular—to be used 

and discussed in two depositions without objection, as defendants did not take reasonable steps to 

prevent the disclosure. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(2); see also Luna Gaming-San Diego, LLC v. 

Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, No. 06cv2804, 2010 WL 275083, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) 

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 289 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(finding waiver of attorney-client privilege where privilege holder failed to object immediately to 

use of privileged document in deposition); Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., No. 

2:14-cv-00772-GMN-NJK, 2016 WL 3654285, at *2–3 (D. Nev. July 5, 2016) (same). The Court 

explained in its earlier order that it was disinclined to find waiver solely because defendants had 

delayed in asserting privilege with respect to documents inadvertently produced to plaintiffs. See 

Dkt. No. 224 at 8. However, defendants’ failure to protect the privileged material in document

DEF-13914–DEF-13918 differs in important respects from the circumstances the Court 

considered in its earlier order. After the Court’s September 6, 2019 order resolving defendants’ 

disputed assertions of privileges (Dkt. No. 223), defendants did not claw back DEF-13914–DEF13918, even though it included disclosures inconsistent with the order. More importantly,

defendants subsequently permitted the use of this document in depositions without objection. 

Such conduct is manifestly inconsistent with an assertion of the law enforcement privilege.

At the hearing, defendants argued that the Court should be reluctant to find waiver of the 

law enforcement privilege in circumstances where national security interests are at stake. Dkt. No. 

288. The problem is that defendants are unable to articulate how disclosure of the disputed term 

implicates such interests. Defendants conceded during argument that, even when read in context, 

the term does not disclose specific operational details of any vetting technique, and defendants 

could not explain how disclosure of the term provides “a starting point” by which any particular 

law enforcement technique may be undermined. See Dkt. No. 280 at 5; Dkt. No. 288.

1

Accordingly, defendants may not redact the disputed term from document DEF-13914–

DEF-13918 based on assertion of the law enforcement privilege.

///

///

1 The Court is mystified by defendants’ suggestion at the hearing that the Court’s September 6, 

2019 order (or plaintiffs’ take on that order) misled defendants into believing that the law 

enforcement privilege protects only the operational details of a vetting technique when that 

technique is applied in a particular refugee’s case. Nothing in the Court’s order supports that 

interpretation. Indeed, most of the Court’s findings sustaining defendants’ assertion of the law 

enforcement privilege did not involve the application of particular techniques in particular cases. 

See Dkt. No. 223-1 (appendix with document-specific rulings).

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 289 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 289 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 3