Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02108/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Holder
Defendant
Ines Lugo
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ines Lugo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eric Holder, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-02108-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. See Doc. 62. The 

Government filed an opposition on 4/9/15. See Doc. 65. The deadline to file a reply 

expired on 4/20/15. See LRCiv 7.2(d). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed 

a reply. As any reply would now be untimely and would not be considered by the Court, 

the motion is ready for a ruling. As discussed below, the motion is denied. 

Discussion

 The record reflects that this is an action seeking review of a decision by the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“Agency”) denying Plaintiff’s Application 

for Naturalization (“Application”). As pertinent to this discovery dispute, on 2/21/14, the 

Agency issued a detailed decision explaining why Plaintiff’s Application was denied 

(“Decision”). The Agency’s Decision explained that relevant statutory and regulatory 

authority require that an applicant have “good moral character,” and that she did not meet 

this requirement as she lied to the Agency about her involvement in criminal activities 

when asked during an interview and hearing pertaining to her Application. While 

Plaintiff challenged that assessment arguing that she suffered memory lapses as to that 

criminal history due to her depression and medication, the Agency did not find her 

explanation persuasive. In the Decision, the Agency explained that Plaintiff failed to 

disclose at the outset of the Application process that she had depression or associated 

medications that impacted her memory, and only after the Agency confronted her with 

Case 4:13-cv-02108-JAS Document 69 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

the pertinent criminal history, did Plaintiff raise the depression and memory lapse issues. 

In addition, the Agency noted that the medical records pertaining to her depression and 

medication submitted to the Agency did not substantiate her broad claims of memory 

issues. 

 Subsequent to the Agency’s Decision, Plaintiff filed this action seeking review of 

the Decision. In the course of discovery, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of the Agency 

officer who wrote the Decision at issue (i.e., Anthony Jackson). In relation to the 

deposition, Plaintiff requested “any and all documents that were considered in arriving at 

[the Decision].” In addition, during the course of the deposition, Plaintiff asked questions 

seeking to gain insight into the analysis that occurred to support the Decision. Defendant 

objected to Plaintiff’s document requests and questions as such information was 

protected by the deliberative process privilege (“DPP”) and the mental process privilege 

(“MPP”). The Court agrees. 

 The purpose of the DPP “is to allow agencies freely to explore possibilities, 

engage in internal debates, or play devil's advocate without fear of public scrutiny. 

Congress expressed concern that if agencies were forced to operate in a fishbowl . . . 

candid exchange of ideas within an agency would cease and the quality of decisions 

would suffer.” Assembly of the State of California v. United States Department of 

Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992).1

 To be protected by the DPP, the 

document at issue must be both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” See id.2

 “A 

predecisional document is one prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in 

arriving at his decision . . . and may include recommendations, draft documents, 

proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal 

opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency . . . A predecisional document 

is a part of the deliberative process, if the disclosure of [the] materials would expose an 

 

1

 Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations have been 

omitted when quoting or citing cases throughout this Order. 

2

 The burden is on the agency to show that the documents at issue are exempt from disclosure. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 4:13-cv-02108-JAS Document 69 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within 

the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions.” Id.3

 “The underlying purpose of the deliberative process privilege is to ensure that 

agencies are not forced to operate in a fishbowl. To that end, courts focus on the effect of 

the materials' release: the key question in [DPP] cases [is] whether the disclosure of 

materials would expose an agency's decision-making process in such a way as to 

discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's 

ability to perform its functions. [The] focus [is] on whether the document in question is a 

part of the deliberative process . . . Predecisional materials are privileged to the extent 

that they reveal the mental processes of decision-makers.” Id. at 921. “The earliest cases 

to examine the deliberative process privilege contrasted factual and deliberative 

materials. The idea behind this distinction was that agencies had no legitimate interest in 

keeping the public ignorant of the facts the agencies worked from, while they did have a 

legitimate interest in shielding their preliminary opinions and explorations.” Id. 

However, “the Supreme Court warned against a wooden Application of this distinction 

that would make the amount of material deemed factual within a document the deciding 

factor . . . The key to the inquiry is whether revealing the information exposes the 

deliberative process.” Id.; see also North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F.Supp.2d 

1118, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Related to the deliberative process privilege—indeed, 

perhaps inherently part of it—is what has sometimes been called the mental process 

privilege . . . [T]he immunity of intra-governmental opinions and deliberations . . . rests 

upon another policy of equal vitality and scope— i.e., the protection of the mental 

processes of executive or administrative officials . . . This related privilege, which 

involves uncommunicated motivations for a policy or decision, has been applied in both 

the adjudicative and legislative context.”). 

 The record reflects that although a superior (Al Gallmann-Field Office Director) at 

 

3 See also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 861 F.2d 1114; Maricopa Audobon Soc’y v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 4:13-cv-02108-JAS Document 69 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

the Agency ultimately signed off on the Decision, Jackson was primarily responsible for 

writing the decision. Prior to a Decision being finalized, there are discussions, changes, 

and working drafts that are exchanged leading up to a final Decision such as the one 

Plaintiff received. During the course of Jackson’s deposition, Plaintiff asked questions 

that either explicitly or implicitly sought information delving into the thoughts, analysis, 

and actions of the pertinent Agency officers leading to the finalized Decision. See Doc. 

65 (Defendant’s Response at p. 2, line 13 to p. 3, line 21; summarizing the objectionable 

questions and issues raised during Jackson’s deposition). In light of the foregoing, the 

Court finds that both the DPP and MPP apply to prevent disclosure of the documents and 

testimony sought by Plaintiff. As referenced above, Plaintiff did not file a reply disputing 

any of the arguments made by Defendant, and has otherwise made no showing that these 

privileges do not apply, or that she is entitled to the information in spite of the 

applicability of these privileges. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 62) is 

denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is also denied for failure to 

comply with the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff failed to submit both an authority binder and a 

binder of documents relating to his motion and supporting documents in violation of the 

Court’s previous Orders.4

 See Docs. 18, 61. 

 Dated this 30th day of April, 2015. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

 

4

 Likewise, Defendant failed to comply with these Orders in relation to its 

response. 

Case 4:13-cv-02108-JAS Document 69 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4