Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-00421/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-00421-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARLOS GUTIERREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 01-0421 JL

 

ORDER

Introduction

Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“NRDC” or “Plaintiffs”) and

Federal Defendants, including the National Marine Fisheries Service (“Defendants” or

“NMFS”) filed statements (Docket #s 234, 235, 236, and 237) regarding a dispute over the

adequacy of Defendants’ Privilege Log. The Court found the matter suitable for decision

without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

Background

This Court on January 14, 2008 issued an order to Federal Defendants to complete

the administrative record , and then granted their request for an extension of the deadline

to March 17, 2008.

The Court’s ordered that: 

“(1) No later than March 17, 2008, Federal Defendants must produce all nonprivileged documents which were before NMFS when it made its decision, whether

those documents are reflected in the decision or are contrary to it;

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 2 of 7

“(2) With respect to any documents for which Federal Defendants claim the

deliberative process privilege, Federal Defendants shall produce any factual material

which may be segregated from deliberative material; and

“(3) Also no later than March 17, 2008, Federal Defendants must produce to

Plaintiffs and file with the Court a privilege log listing all documents for which Federal

Defendants claim the deliberative process privilege or other applicable privilege.” 

(Docket # 227, 1:1-13)(Emphasis added)

 The Northwest Regional Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (“NOAA”) General Counsel’s Office contacted “all supervisors of NMFS

employees that were involved in the development and implementation of Amendment 16-4

to the Pacific Coast Groundfish [Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”)] and the 2007-2008

Specifications and Management Measures for groundfish.” Lockhart Decl. at ¶ 4.

This included the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division (“SFD”), which is responsible

for implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, as well as the Pacific Fishery

Management Council, scientists who worked on the relevant stock assessments, and

NOAA General Counsel’s Office attorneys. See id. These employees were directed to

provide “all documents pertaining to” the challenged agency action, including but not limited

to “e-mails, internal notes, meeting minutes, analyses and drafts.” Id. These additional

documents, combined with the March 9, 2007 administrative record, constitute “all

documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers,”

including “evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,

885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989).

On March 17, 2008, Federal Defendants filed the Supplemental Administrative

Record, consisting of 71 additional volumes of documents and a DVD containing electronic

documents. They simultaneously filed the Declaration of Frank D. Lockhart (“Lockhart

Decl.”) explaining the process NMFS used to compile the Second Supplemental Record.

(Docket No. 232-2)

Thus, Defendants argue that the Court now has before it the “whole” administrative

record. See id. Federal Defendants contend that the determination that these documents

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 3 of 7

constitute the entire administrative record is entitled to a presumption of regularity. See Bar

MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993) (agency’s designation of

administrative record presumed to be valid “absent clear evidence to the contrary”);

McCrary v. Gutierrez, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1041 (N.D. Cal 2007) (same).

The parties briefed the issue of privilege

The Court’s January 14, 2008 Order permitted the parties to provide further briefing

on the applicability of the deliberative process privilege. See Doc. No. 226 at 15. NMFS has

decided not to invoke the deliberative process privilege with respect to any documents in

the Second Supplemental Record. Lockhart Decl. at ¶13. Instead, NMFS withheld sixty-six

documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege.

Id. at ¶14. These documents are described in Section E of the Index to the Second

Supplemental Record. See Doc. No. 232-3 at 2-6. Along with their opening brief on

privilege, Defendants filed a revised Index to the Second Supplemental Administrative

Record (“Revised Index”) to correct errors in Section E with respect to the employers of

several individuals.

The Privilege Log and NRDC’s Objections

On March 14 and March 28, 2008 NMFS produced to NRDC and the Court a

Revised Index (the Privilege Log). NMFS claims the protection of the attorney-client

privilege or the work product doctrine for 66 documents. (Docket No. 232-3 at 2-6: Section

E of the Index to the Supplemental Record). The Revised Index sets forth: (a) the attorney

and client involved; (b) all persons or entities shown on the document to have received or

sent the document; (c) the subject matter; and (d) the date the document was generated,

prepared, or dated. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1070 (9th Cir. 1992),

citing Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, Defendants argue they

have met their burden of making a prima facie showing that the attorney-client privilege and

the attorney work product privilege apply to these documents. Id., 974 F.2d at 1070.

However, Defendants did not identify the nature of each document: whether it was a

memo, letter or email. Id. at 1071. NRDC objects that NMFS has not provided a description

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 4 of 7

of each document adequate to allow the Court and NRDC to evaluate the validity of the

claims of privilege. 

ANALYSIS

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege has eight essential elements: “1) where legal advice of

any kind is sought; 2) from a 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.” In re Grand Jury, 974 F.2d at 1071 fn.

Defendants must provide adequate support for claims of privilege

Once the privilege is invoked, the party asserting it must make a prima facie showing

that the privilege protects the documents in question. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974

F.2d at 1070-71; see also Federal Rule 26(b)(5) (requiring an express claim of privilege,

the grounds upon which it is based, and disclosure of sufficient information to determine the

applicability of the privilege). A privilege log is “one means by which a party can establish

the [applicability of a] privilege.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d at 1071. The log

itself must contain: (a) the attorney and client involved, (b) the nature of the document, (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.” Id. Under

Federal Rule 26(b)(5) the burden of proving the attachment of privilege to each document

is on NMFS. See Clarke v. Am. Commercial Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir.1992).

NMFS’s cursory list of documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege does

not, contrary to the agency’s assertions, meet NMFS’s burden of establishing each element

of the privilege. The short sentence fragments and dates NMFS has provided for each

excluded document do not describe the documents’ type or nature, let alone reveal their

subject matter or establish the elements of the privilege.

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 5 of 7

See, e.g., dkt. no. 234-2 at 3-4, doc. nos. E.12 (“Tmax relevance to rebuilding

plans”), E.24 (“Yelloweye rebuilding time”), E.36 (“groundfish regulations”). The list does

not indicate that the documents concern communications made for the purpose of seeking

legal advice from attorneys in their capacity as legal advisors to NMFS. Compare, e.g., dkt.

no. 234-2 at 4, doc. no. E.31 (“Dahl (PFMC) to Park (NOAA:GCF)”; “Comments on Chapter

8 – 07/05/06”) with United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir. 1996) (“That a

person is a lawyer does not, ipso facto, make all communications with that person

privileged. The privilege applies only when legal advice is sought from a professional legal

advisor in his capacity as such.” The Court finds the NMFS’s log entries to be cryptic to the

point of obfuscation. NMFS shall identify with greater particularity, through more detailed

log entries or affidavits, the basis for the claim of privilege for each document. The log

entries or affidavits shall include, inter alia, the type or format of each excluded document

as well as each document’s subject matter and how each document satisfies all the

elements of the claimed privilege.

Work Product

Federal Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery “regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party....” However, Rule 26(b)(3) has three

requirements that must be met before work product protection applies, “the material in

question must be: 1) a document or tangible thing, 2) which was prepared in anticipation,

and 3) was prepared by or for a party, or by or for its representative.” In re Community

Psychiatric Centers, 1993 WL 497253 *5 (C.D.Cal.1993). Upon satisfaction of all three

requirements, the burden then shifts to the party seeking production to show necessity of

the documents under Rule 26(b)(3).

Again, NRDC object that NMFS’s Privilege Log gives even less detail about

documents for which it claims work product protection. (Pltf Response Brief at 3) Some

examples of log entries for documents for which NMFS claims the protection of the work

product doctrine include “question regarding e-mail to clients,” (E.43; Ex. A Lockhart Decl.)

and “comments on comment responses.” (E.48, Id.) An entry like this gives no guidance for

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 6 of 7

the Court to evaluate whether the documents are subject to the work product doctrine.

The Court hereby orders Federal Defendants to provide either more detailed log

entries or affidavits describing in further detail the nature of each document for which they

claim privilege, including the type or format of each excluded document as well as each

document’s subject matter and how each document satisfies all the elements of the

claimed privilege.

Defendants should produce segregable non-privileged material

Finally, it appears that NMFS never attempted to identify segregable, non-privileged

material within any of the sixty-six excluded documents. See dkt. no. 232-3 (Lockhart Decl.)

at 3 ¶ 7 (“documents that were identified as privileged were segregated” ), 5 ¶¶ 13, 14

(agency “reviewed all documents to determine whether NMFS should invoke” the privilege,

and ultimately excluded sixty-six (emphasis added)); see also AR 41 part E (no segregated

material). The Court previously ordered such material to be produced. Although the Court’s

January 14 order referred to non-privileged material which could be segregated from

deliberative material, it also applies to documents for which there is a claim of any privilege,

not only the deliberative process privilege. Federal Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs

and the Court all segregable non-privileged material, including factual material, even if

contained within documents for which they claim privilege.

Search should not be limited

NMFS arbitrarily excluded from its search for documents six agencies which

participated in the rulemaking process: Offices of the Regional Administrator for the Pacific

Northwest Region; the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries; Director and Acting Director of

the Office of Sustainable Fisheries; NOAA General Counsel (headquarters office), and

Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. NMFS’s response brief does

not claim that the offices identified by NRDC were in fact searched, nor does NMFS rebut

NRDC’s inference that the offices were, in fact, involved in the challenged rulemaking. See

NMFS Resp. Br., dkt. No. 236, at 1-3. The Court rejects NMFS’s contention that its search

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER C-01-0421,C-01-0637 Page 7 of 7

of the Sustainable Fisheries Division office would “capture” correspondence with the

omitted agencies or offices. Such a limited search would not, for example, capture

communications among the excluded agencies. 

In a case such as this, the “whole record” includes everything that was before the

agency pertaining to the merits of its decision. Portland Audubon Society v. Endangered

Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993). This would include not only offices

whose personnel were involved in “development and implementation” of the challenged

regulations, the limitation that NMFS imposes, but also all decision-makers involved in the

review or approval of those regulations, as NRDC demands, even if those decision-makers

are outside the Pacific Northwest, for instance in Washington, D.C. In light of the case law,

and the law of the case as established by this Court’s express order to produce “all nonprivileged documents which were before NMFS when it made its decision, whether those

documents are reflected in the decision or are contrary to it,” it is unreasonable for NMFS

to exclude these agencies from its search. 

Accordingly, Federal Defendants are hereby ordered to extend their document

search to the six formerly-excluded agencies listed above and to produce responsive nonprivileged documents, or segregable portions of documents for which they claim privilege. If

Federal Defendants claim privilege for any of the newly-obtained documents, they shall

provide an adequate privilege log and affidavits as described above.

Compliance with all the above rulings shall be due within thirty days of the issuance

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2008

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIVIL\01-0421\Order re 234,235,236,237.wpd

Case 3:01-cv-00421-JL Document 238 Filed 06/17/08 Page 7 of 7