Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524-2/pdf.json

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

Blake Smalley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C Contino, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02524-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On November 20, 2013, the Court held a discovery conference call with the 

parties. At the Court’s direction, the parties submitted memoranda on the application of 

the deliberative process privilege in this case. Docs. 89, 90. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court concludes that Defendants must turn over the requested executive 

session minutes. 

 This case arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks discovery of documents 

relating to Defendants’ policing practices, and the request covers minutes from executive 

sessions of the County Board of Supervisors. Defendants argue that the minutes are 

privileged under A.R.S. § 38-431.03 and the deliberative process privilege. Doc. 89 at 2. 

 Defendants correctly observe that, under Federal Rules of Evidence 501, “state 

law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule 

of decision.” Doc. 89 at 4. Defendants argue that because “Smalley’s request for esession minutes goes directly against Arizona state law,” Arizona privilege law – which 

Defendant believes is embodied in A.R.S. § 38-431.03 – applies. Doc. 89 at 4. But the 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 95 Filed 12/12/13 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 

“rule of decision” mentioned in Rule 501 is not the rule of decision on the privilege issue; 

it is the rule of decision on the claim or defense asserted in the case. This case arises 

under § 1983. Federal law, not Arizona law, supplies the rule of decision in such a case, 

and issues of privilege therefore are not resolved under Arizona law. See Crowe v. Cnty. 

of San Diego, 242 F. Supp. 2d 740, 746 (S.D. Cal. 2003); American Civil Liberties Union 

of Mississippi, Inc. v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342 (5th Cir. 1981). Thus, even assuming 

A.R.S. § 38-413.03 establishes a privilege, it does not apply in this case. 

 Issues of privilege in this case must be resolved under federal common law. Fed. 

R. Evid. 501. That law recognizes a deliberative process privilege. Dep’t of Interior v. 

Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001). The privilege rests on the 

realization that officials will not communicate candidly among themselves if each remark 

is potentially subject to discovery. The privilege seeks to enhance the quality of 

government by promoting open and frank exchanges among government decision 

makers. For the privilege to apply, a document must meet two requirements. “First, the 

document must be predecisional – it must have been generated before the adoption of an 

agency’s policy or decision . . . . Second, the document must be deliberative in nature, 

containing opinions, recommendations, or advice about agency policies. Purely factual 

material that does not reflect deliberative processes is not protected.” F.T.C. v. Warner 

Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 Even if a party satisfies these requirements, the deliberative process privilege is 

qualified. “A litigant may obtain deliberative materials if his or her need for the materials 

and the need for accurate fact-finding override the government’s interest in nondisclosure.” Id. Among the factors that the Court must consider are: (1) the relevance of 

the evidence; (2) the availability of other evidence; (3) the government’s role in the 

litigation; and (4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent 

discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions. Id. Thus, if the Court 

determines that the privilege applies, the Court must consider whether portions of the 

document are still subject to disclosure. See Electronic Frontier Found. v. Office of the 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 95 Filed 12/12/13 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 

Dir. of Nat. Intelligence, 639 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (endorsing application of Vaughn 

v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-27 (D.C. Cir. 1973), to deliberative process privilege). 

 “The party asserting an evidentiary privilege has the burden to demonstrate that 

the privilege applies to the information in question.” Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 

1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Hirsch, 803 F.2d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 

1986)). Defendants have not met this burden. Defendants make only general allegations 

regarding the applicability of the privilege. Defendants argue in their brief that EPA v. 

Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87 (1973), provides the acknowledged test for determining whether 

the deliberative process privilege applies. Although Mink is an important case on the 

content of the deliberative process privilege, subsequent the Supreme Court and Ninth 

Circuit cases cited above have expounded on the privilege and established inquiries to 

determine how and when it applies. Defendants have not addressed the threshold 

requirements of Klamath Water Users. They do not identify documents they seek to 

withhold under the privilege, address whether they are deliberative in nature, or address 

whether they contain purely factual material. Nor do they address the four factors to be 

considered under Warner in deciding whether the qualified privilege must give way. 

Because Defendants have not carried their burden of showing that the privilege applies in 

this case, the Court concludes that the Board of Supervisor’s executive session minutes 

must be produced. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants produce the Board of Supervisors e-session 

minutes. 

 Dated this 12th day of December, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 95 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 3