Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08045/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08045-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Michael Williams, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08045-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 6, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify ten documents they 

believe were improperly withheld by Defendants as privileged, and ordered Defendants 

to submit those documents to the Court for in camera review. Doc. 108 at 4. Plaintiffs 

identified Documents 2, 9, 14, 18, 21, 22, 29, 32, 36, and 27 on Defendants’ privilege 

log. 

 The Court reviewed the documents in camera. Defendants claimed that eight of 

the ten documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Docs. 9, 14, 18, 21, 22, 

29, 32, 36. Upon review, these documents appear to be communications between 

Defendants’ counsel and government clients that were properly withheld. 

 Defendants claimed that Document 2 was protected by the deliberative process 

privilege. Upon review, the Court finds that this document satisfies the Ninth Circuit’s 

standard as a “document[] that reflect[s] advisory opinions, recommendations and 

deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies 

are formulated.” F.T.C. v. Warner Commc'ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Because the document is both pre-decisional and deliberative, it was properly withheld. 

Case 3:13-cv-08045-DGC Document 112 Filed 04/07/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Document 37 was originally withheld as protected by the deliberative process 

privilege and as confidential business information. Doc. 106-4 at 8. Because Defendants 

have determined that the document is substantially similar to the final Valid Existing 

Rights Determination already included in the record, they have agreed to release the 

document in a redacted format, with the understanding that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not 

challenge redactions that protect confidential business information. Doc. 110 at 7. 

IT IS ORDERED that no additional documents need be released or submitted for 

in camera review. 

 Dated this 7th day of April, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08045-DGC Document 112 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 2