Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00524/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00524-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

Stipulation 1 

California v. BLM, 4:18-cv-00521-HSG; Sierra Club v. Zinke, 4:18-cv-00524-HSG 

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 

JEAN E. WILLIAMS 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

CORINNE SNOW (TX Bar No. 24083883) 

REBECCA JAFFE (NC Bar No. 40726) 

601 D St. NW, 3rd Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Tel: (202) 305-0258 

Fax: (202) 305-0506 

corinne.snow@usdoj.gov 

rebecca.jaffe@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Federal Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, et al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________ 

SIERRA CLUB, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

RYAN ZINKE, et al. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-HSG (related) 

Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG (related) 

STIPULATION 

 On November 26, 2018 and December 13, 2018, Federal Defendants sent all parties “clawback” 

letters under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) identifying 

eight documents as having been inadvertently disclosed in the original administrative record and that 

Federal Defendants believe contained privileged information. Environmental Plaintiffs have 

Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 96 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation 2 

California v. BLM, 4:18-cv-00521-HSG; Sierra Club v. Zinke, 4:18-cv-00524-HSG 

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 

sequestered, but not destroyed, these eight documents because Environmental Plaintiffs believe that the 

documents involve statements that the government has put at issue in this case (or may put at issue 

during summary judgment briefing), which would waive the government’s assertion of privilege. 

Federal Defendants contend that they have not put the privileged statements at issue and that the 

Environmental Plaintiffs cannot retain privileged documents subject to a clawback based on hypothetical 

future actions. The parties disagree whether Rule 26(b)(5) gives Environmental Plaintiffs the option of 

sequestering, rather than destroying or returning, the documents under these circumstances. Federal 

Defendants contend that sequestration is appropriate only while a party seeks more information on the 

basis for the clawback or while a party challenges the clawback in Court. The Environmental Plaintiffs 

contend that no such limitation applies under Rule 26(b)(5). The Environmental Plaintiffs and Federal 

Defendants, however, agree that it is unnecessary for the Court to resolve this dispute (if at all) prior to 

summary judgment briefing in this case. 

Accordingly, in order to facilitate efficient resolution of disputes and to avoid potentially 

unnecessary motion practice, Federal Defendants and Environmental Plaintiffs stipulate as follows:1

1) Environmental Plaintiffs have not disclosed the eight documents and have segregated them from 

the rest of the administrative record materials to prevent any future inadvertent disclosures. 

They will continue to sequester the eight documents. Environmental Plaintiffs will not use or 

disclose the eight documents for any purpose prior to resolving any challenges to Federal 

Defendants’ privilege claims. 

2) Federal Defendants will not file a motion to compel destruction of the eight documents while 

Environmental Plaintiffs are considering whether to challenge Federal Defendants’ privilege 

claims. 

 

1 All other parties have represented to Federal Defendants that they have destroyed the eight documents 

and, accordingly, they are not signatories to this stipulation.

Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 96 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation 3 

California v. BLM, 4:18-cv-00521-HSG; Sierra Club v. Zinke, 4:18-cv-00524-HSG 

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) Environmental Plaintiffs will not argue that any delay from Federal Defendants waiting for 

Environmental Plaintiffs pursuant to # 2, above, constitutes waiver of the privilege claims. 

4) Federal Defendants will not argue that any delay from Environmental Plaintiffs’ deferral of a 

challenge to Federal Defendants’ privilege claims waives the Environmental Plaintiffs’ right to 

challenge those claims. 

5) Environmental Plaintiffs will notify Federal Defendants when they reach a final decision as to 

whether they will challenge Federal Defendants’ privilege claims. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

JEAN E. WILLIAMS 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

 

Date: February 19, 2019 _/s/ Rebecca Jaffe ___ Rebecca Jaffe 

Trial Attorney 

Attorney for Federal Defendants 

Date: February 19, 2019 _/s/ Michael Freeman __ 

 Michael S. Freeman 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: 

 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

2/19/2019

Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 96 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 3