UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 19-1552 (ABJ)

v. ) ***SEALED***

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Friday, March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III delivered his Report of 

the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election1 to the then-Attorney 

General of the United States, William P. Barr.2

 

But the Attorney General did not share it with anyone else.

Instead, before the weekend was over, he sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting 

to “summarize the principal conclusions” set out in the Report, compressing the approximately 

200 highly detailed and painstakingly footnoted pages of Volume I – which discusses the Russian 

government’s interference in the election and any links or coordination with the Trump campaign 

– and the almost 200 equally detailed pages of Volume II – which concerns acts taken by then-

 

1 Report of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election 

(“Mueller Report” or “Report”), Volume I, https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume1.pdf,

Volume II, https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf (March 2019).

2 See Letter from William P. Barr, Attorney General, to Hon. Lindsey Graham, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, et al. (Mar. 22, 2019), 

https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/page/file/1147986/download.
2

President Trump in connection with the investigation – into less than four pages.3 The letter 

asserted that the Special Counsel “did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether 

the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” and it went on to announce the Attorney General’s 

own opinion that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not 

sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”4

 

The President then declared himself to have been fully exonerated.5

The Attorney General’s characterization of what he’d hardly had time to skim, much less, 

study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their 

microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball.

 

3 Letter from William P. Barr, Attorney General, to Hon. Lindsey Graham, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, et al. (Mar. 24, 2019),

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1147981/download (“March 24 Letter”) at 2; see also id. at 3

(“The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without 

reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct 

described in the report constitutes a crime.”). 

4 March 24 Letter at 3.

5 Trump responds to Mueller report: ‘complete and total exoneration,’ Reuters Staff, 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweet/trump-responds-to-mueller-reportcomplete-and-total-exoneration-idUSKCN1R50U3 (Mar. 24, 2019, 4:57 pm) (quoting the 

President’s tweet: “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP 

AMERICA GREAT!”). This tweet is currently unavailable due to President Trump’s permanent 

suspension from Twitter on January 8, 2021, see Permanent Suspension of @realDonaldTrump, 

Twitter, Inc., https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html (last visited 

Apr. 28, 2021), and the National Archives and Records Administration is still working to make 

the archival tweets available to the public. See Archived Social Media – Donald J. Trump 

Presidential Library, National Archives, https://www.trumplibrary.gov/research/archived-socialmedia (last updated Apr. 26, 2021). 
3

Even the customarily taciturn Special Counsel was moved to pen an extraordinary public 

rebuke on March 27:

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the 

public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the 

context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. 

We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of 

March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the 

results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose 

for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full 

public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.6

Mueller called for the immediate release of his report, id., but it remained under wraps for another 

three weeks. 

On April 18, 2019, the Attorney General appeared before Congress to deliver the report.7

 

He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in 

the March 24 letter “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department 

lawyers.” Id.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) immediately fired off a 

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for any records related to those consultations, but 

the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) demurred on the grounds of the deliberative process and 

attorney-client privileges. What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General 

dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to 

Congress.

 

6 Letter from Robert S. Mueller, III, Special Counsel, to Hon. William P. Barr, Attorney 

General of the United States (Mar. 27, 2019), available at https://apps.npr.org/ 

documents/document.html?id=5984399-Mueller-Letter-to-Barr (“March 27 Letter”).

7 Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks on the Release of the Report on the 

Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, DOJ Justice News 

(Apr. 18, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-deliversremarks-release-report-investigation-russian (“April 18 Remarks”).
4

It is time for the public to see that, too.

CREW brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552, against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), seeking the production of 

documents that Attorney General Barr reviewed in advance of his public announcement 

concerning the report transmitted to him by Special Counsel Mueller. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 1–2. 

The complaint contained two counts: the first alleged wrongful withholding of non-exempt 

records, and the second requested a declaration from the Court, pursuant to the Declaratory 

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that DOJ violated FOIA by refusing to grant expedited 

processing of its request. Id. ¶¶ 1, 23–24.8

CREW has accepted the bulk of the agency’s withholdings, but there are still two records 

in dispute, and cross motions for summary judgment and defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss 

Count Two are pending before the Court. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. and Mot. to Dismiss for Lack 

of Jurisdiction [Dkt. # 15] (“Def.’s Mot.”); Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. and Renewed 

Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 16]; Pl.’s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. # 17] (“Pl.’s Cross Mot.”). With 

respect to Count One, the motions address whether it was proper for defendant to withhold the two 

records under FOIA Exemption 5. The Court finds that the record designated as Document 6 was 

properly withheld, but it will order that Document 15 be produced. As to Count Two, the parties 

dispute whether the claim about expedited processing is now moot, and the Court agrees with the 

defendant and will dismiss that count.

 

8 On January 31, 2020, the Court denied defendant’s partial motion to dismiss Count Two. 

See Order [Dkt. # 9].
5

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

CREW states that it is a “non-profit, non-partisan organization . . . committed to protecting 

the rights of citizens to be informed about the activities of government officials and agencies.” 

Compl. ¶ 4. The complaint alleges that on April 18, 2019, Attorney General Barr held a press 

conference to announce the public release of the Report of the Special Counsel’s investigation into 

Russian interference in the 2016 election and the potential obstruction of that investigation. Id. 

¶ 13. During that conference, Attorney General Barr “stated ‘that the evidence developed by the 

Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice 

offense.’” Id., quoting April 18 Remarks, supra footnote 7.

Later that day, CREW submitted a FOIA request to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel 

(“OLC”), seeking “all documents pertaining to the views OLC provided Attorney General Barr on 

whether the evidence developed by Special Counsel Mueller is sufficient to establish that the 

President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Compl. ¶ 14. 

The defendant conducted the necessary search, and it identified sixty-one responsive 

records, thirty-two of which it produced to plaintiff with partial redactions, and twenty-eight of 

which it withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 5. Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. # 15-2] 

(“Def.’s Mem.”) at 4–5. It referred one record to the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), which 

was later produced to plaintiff with redactions. Id. at 5. Two of the documents withheld in full 

remain in dispute, and they are the subject of the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. 

See Def.’s Mot; Pl.’s Mot. Defendant’s motion is supported by the declaration of a Special 

Counsel within OLC who supervises that office’s responses to the FOIA requests, see Decl. of 

Paul P. Colborn [Dkt. # 15-3] (“Colborn Decl.”) ¶ 1, and the declaration of a Senior Counsel in 
6

the OIP, who has supervisory authority over the handling of FOIA requests that are subject to 

litigation. See Decl. of Vanessa R. Brinkmann [Dkt. # 15-4] (“Brinkmann Decl.”) ¶ 1.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

I. The Summary Judgment Standard

 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing 

the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 

which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must 

“designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324. 

The mere existence of a factual dispute is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” only if a 

reasonable fact-finder could find for the non-moving party; a fact is “material” only if it is capable 

of affecting the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 248; Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 

1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In assessing a party’s motion, the court must “view the facts and draw 

reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment 

motion.’” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (alterations omitted), quoting United States 

v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam).

When the court is presented with cross-motions for summary judgment, it analyzes the 

underlying facts and inferences in each party’s motion in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247.
7

II. The Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) compels government agencies to release 

records upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552. The act also authorizes agencies to withhold the requested 

records if they can demonstrate that the record falls into one of nine specific exemptions. See id.

§ 552(b); Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 

Consistent with FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure, the exemptions are to be 

construed narrowly, and the withholding agency bears the burden of showing that the claimed 

exemption applies. Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360–61 (1976); Loving v. Dep’t of 

Defense, 550 F.3d 32, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “[W]hen an agency seeks to withhold information, it 

must provide ‘a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a 

particular exemption is relevant[.]’” Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 2007), quoting 

King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 219 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Campbell v. U.S. Dep’t

of Just., 164 F.3d 20, 30 (D.C. Cir. 1998), as amended (Mar. 3, 1999) (“To justify summary 

judgment, a declaration must provide detailed and specific information demonstrating that material 

withheld is logically within the domain of the exemption claimed.”) (internal quotation omitted).

When summary judgment turns upon the applicability of an exemption, the court must 

“ascertain whether the agency has sustained its burden of demonstrating that the documents 

requested . . . are exempted from disclosure.” Assassination Archives & Rsch. Cent. v. CIA, 

334 F.3d 55, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Moreover, pursuant to a 2016 amendment to the FOIA statute, 

an agency may withhold information pursuant to an exemption only if it “reasonably foresees that 

disclosure would harm an interest protected by” that exemption. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A). This 

“reasonable foreseeability of harm” standard requires the withholding agency to provide “context 

or insight into the specific decision-making processes or deliberations at issue, and how they 
8

in particular would be harmed by disclosure” of the contested records. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 17-0832 (CKK), 2019 WL 4644029, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2019).

In a FOIA case, a court may grant summary judgment based on information provided in an 

agency’s affidavits or declarations when they are “relatively detailed and non-conclusory[.]” 

SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56(c) states that “[a]n affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion 

must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show 

that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The law recognizes that there are circumstances when an agency declaration may properly 

include hearsay. The D.C. Circuit long ago recognized the validity of the affidavit of an individual 

who supervised a search for records even though the affiant has not conducted the search himself 

as sufficient for a declarant in a FOIA action. See Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 951 

(D.C. Cir. 1986); see also Barnard v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 531 F. Supp. 2d 131, 135 

(D.D.C. 2008) (“Consistent with these requirements, hearsay in FOIA [search] declarations is 

often permissible.”); Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., 

386 F. Supp. 3d 34, 44 (D.D.C. 2019) (acknowledging that hearsay is permissible in justifying the 

adequacy of the search.). 

But courts have not always found hearsay to be sufficient when it is offered to justify the 

withholding of records based on an exemption. See Londrigan v. FBI, 670 F.2d 1164, 1174 

(D.C. Cir. 1981) (district court’s grant of summary judgement reversed due to the affiant’s lack of 

personal knowledge of the facts underlying the exemption and his reliance on hearsay); Judicial 

Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 224 F.R.D. 261, 264–65 (D.D.C. 2004) (court struck 

portions of the agency FOIA Director’s declaration due to a lack of personal knowledge 
9

and impermissible hearsay). As the court observed in Humane Society, “[u]ltimately, it is the 

Court, not the agency, that must be satisfied with the propriety of a claimed FOIA exemption.” 

386 F. Supp. 3d at 44.

Above all, though, it is essential that agency affidavits be accurate. “[S]ummary judgment 

may be granted on the basis of agency affidavits” in FOIA cases, when those affidavits “contain 

reasonable specificity of detail rather than merely conclusory statements,” and when “they are not 

called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad 

faith.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013), quoting 

Consumer Fed’n of Am. v. Dep’t of Agric., 455 F.3d 283, 287 (D.C. Cir. 2006). As the D.C. Circuit 

has emphasized, this Court should be able to depend on the accuracy of submissions that are 

intended “to permit adequate adversary testing of the agency’s claimed right to an exemption.” 

Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. U.S. Customs Serv., 802 F.2d 525, 527 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citations 

omitted); see Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1992), abrogated by Milner v.

Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (“FOIA litigation is not immune from our open, adversary 

process . . . . We expect agencies to ensure that their submissions in FOIA cases are absolutely 

accurate.”); see also Cause of Action Inst. v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S., No. 19-cv-1915 

(JEB), 2021 WL 706612, at *14 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2021) (ordering disclosure of records when 

“[e]ven the briefest in camera review reveals that [defendant’s] description is plainly overbroad 

and . . . seemingly inaccurate, as their content has nothing to do with” the claimed exemption).

Finally, when considering a motion for summary judgment under FOIA, the court must 

conduct a de novo review of the record. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 
10

III. FOIA Exemption 5

Defendant withheld the two records in dispute in this case pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, 

which bars disclosure of “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be 

available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(b)(5). 

A document may be properly withheld under Exemption 5 if it satisfies “two conditions: 

its source must be a [g]overnment agency, and it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against 

discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it.” 

U.S. Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001); see also 

Formaldehyde Inst. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 1118, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 

quoting Taxation Without Representation v. IRS, 646 F.2d 666, 676 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (Exemption 5 

encompasses “the protections traditionally afforded certain documents pursuant to evidentiary 

privileges in the civil discovery context, including . . . the executive deliberative process 

privilege.”).

Here, the agency invoked the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client 

privilege, both of which fall under the ambit of Exemption 5. See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. 

Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862–63 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Elec. Frontier Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 

739 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

A. Deliberative process privilege

The deliberative process privilege “allows the government to withhold documents and 

other materials that would reveal advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations 

comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” In re 

Sealed Case (“Espy”), 121 F.3d 729, 736–37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). The 
11

Supreme Court has explained that it “rests on the obvious realization that officials will not 

communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a potential item of discovery,” and its 

purpose “is to enhance ‘the quality of agency decisions’ by protecting open and frank discussion 

among those who make them within the Government.” Klamath, 532 U.S. at 8–9, quoting NLRB 

v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151 (1975).

To accomplish that goal, “[t]he deliberative process privilege protects agency documents 

that are both predecisional and deliberative.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 151 

(D.C. Cir. 2006), citing Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866. 

Both requirements stem from the privilege’s “ultimate purpose[, which] . . . 

is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions” by allowing 

government officials freedom to debate alternative approaches in private. 

The deliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply 

state or explain a decision the government has already made or protect 

material that is purely factual, unless the material is so inextricably 

intertwined with the deliberative sections of documents that its disclosure 

would inevitably reveal the government’s deliberations. 

Espy, 121 F.3d at 737 (citations omitted).

A document is predecisional if “‘it was generated before the adoption of an agency policy’ 

and deliberative if ‘it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process.’” Judicial Watch, 

Inc., 449 F.3d at 151, quoting Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866. In other words, a “‘predecisional’ 

document is one ‘prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision.’” 

Formaldehyde Inst., 889 F.2d at 1122, quoting Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft Eng’g 

Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975). 

When analyzing whether materials are covered by the privilege, a “court must first be able 

to pinpoint an agency decision or policy to which these documents contributed.” Paisley v. CIA, 

712 F.2d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The agency bears the burden of establishing the character 

of the decision, the deliberative process involved, and the role played by the documents in the 
12

course of that process.” Id.; see also Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 868 (The burden is on the agency 

to establish “what deliberative process is involved, and the role played by the documents in issue 

in the course of that process.”). If the documents in question “are not a part of a clear ‘process’ 

leading to a final decision on the issue . . . they are less likely to be properly characterized as 

predecisional.” Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 868, citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 523 F.2d 1136, 1146 

(D.C. Cir. 1975).9

With respect to the “deliberative” prong of the test, the exemption “protects not only 

communications which are themselves deliberative in nature, but all communications which, if 

revealed, would expose to public view the deliberative process of an agency.” Russell v. Dep’t of 

the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1982), citing Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Train, 

491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

B. The attorney-client privilege

It is also well-settled that Exemption 5 embraces the attorney-client privilege. See Mead 

Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 252 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (The D.C. Circuit 

has “agree[d] that attorney-client privilege has a proper role to play in exemption five cases.”); 

see also Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 862 (“The courts have recognized that Exemption 5 protects, 

as a general rule, material which would be protected under the attorney-client privilege . . . .”). 

 

9 As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a]gencies are, and properly should be, engaged in 

a continuing process of examining their policies; this process will generate memoranda containing 

recommendations which do not ripen into agency decisions . . . .” Sears, 421 U.S. at 151 n.18. 

For that reason, it is not necessary that an internal discussion lead to the adoption of a specific 

government policy or a discrete decision; “its protection under Exemption 5 is not foreclosed as 

long as the document was generated as part of a definable decision-making process.” Gold

Anti-Tr. Action Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 762 F. Supp. 2d 123, 136 

(D.D.C. 2011).
13

“The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications from clients to their 

attorneys made for the purpose of securing legal advice or services.” Tax Analysts

v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 618 (D.C. Cir. 1997), citing In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94, 98–99 

(D.C. Cir. 1984). “Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys 

and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and 

administration of justice.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). The privilege also 

protects communications that flow from attorneys to their clients, but only if the communications 

are based, at least in part, on confidential information obtained from the client. In re Sealed Case, 

737 F.2d at 98–99; see also Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 254. The D.C. Circuit has emphasized 

that it is the claimant’s burden “to present to the court sufficient facts to establish the privilege; 

the claimant must demonstrate with reasonable certainty . . . that the lawyer’s communication 

rested in significant and inseparable part on the client’s confidential disclosure.” In re Sealed

Case, 737 F.2d at 99 (internal quotations omitted).

These principles are not limited to lawyers representing private individuals or entities, but 

they apply to those who work in the public sector as well. In the governmental context, the “client” 

may be a government official or agency, “and the attorney may be an agency lawyer.” Tax

Analysts, 117 F.3d at 618. And those attorneys may communicate among themselves; 

“the [attorney-client] privilege is not lost because an attorney consults other attorneys about the 

subject matter of the communication.” Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 253, n.24.

But the mere fact that the communication involves a member of the bar does not end the 

inquiry. See Mead Data Cent., 566 F.2d at 253 (“The privilege does not allow the withholding 

of documents simply because they are the product of an attorney-client relationship . . . .”). 

For instance, the privilege does not extend to a “government attorney’s ‘advice on political, 
14

strategic, or policy issues, valuable as it may [be].’” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Homeland Sec., 926 F. Supp. 2d 121, 144–45 (D.D.C. 2013), quoting In re Lindsey, 

148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998). And, where an agency lawyer serves in a mixed capacity 

that includes responsibilities that fall both within and “outside the lawyer’s sphere,” that lawyer’s 

advice will be protected only to the extent that the lawyer offered it in their professional, legal 

capacity. In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d at 99. As another court in this district explained, to invoke 

the privilege, the Department of Justice must establish that securing legal advice was a “primary 

purpose” of the communication in question. Cause of Action Inst. v. United States Dep’t of Just., 

330 F. Supp. 3d 336, 347 (D.D.C. 2018); see also id., quoting Campbell, 164 F.3d at 30 (“[T]he 

burden rests with the Government to prove, through ‘detailed and specific information,’ that the 

withheld information falls within the domain of the privilege.”). Finally, “[l]ike all privileges . . . 

the attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed and is limited to those situations in which its 

purposes will be served. Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 862. 

ANALYSIS

With that legal backdrop in mind, the Court reviewed the declarations submitted by the 

government in this case, the pleadings, and the two documents themselves in camera. Since its 

decision rests in part on the content of one of the documents, the portions of the opinion that refer 

directly to withheld material will be sealed pending further order of the Court, and a redacted 

version will be made available on the public docket.

I. Document 6 was properly withheld.

According to the Colborn declaration, “[t]he principal function of the OLC is to assist and 

advise the Attorney General in his role as legal advisor to the President of the United States and to 

departments and agencies of the Executive Branch.” Colborn Decl. ¶ 2. OLC does not make 
15

policy decisions; it “provides advice and prepares opinions addressing a wide range of legal 

questions,” id., and “OLC legal advice in all its forms is generally kept confidential.” Id. ¶ 3.

Colborn describes Document 6 as an “untitled, undated draft legal analysis,” prepared by 

Steven A. Engel, an Assistant Attorney General within the Office of Legal Counsel, “for his use 

in providing legal advice within the Department of Justice.” Colborn Decl. ¶ 16. Colborn adds 

that “[t]he document contains OLC legal advice and analysis, and also contains confidential client 

information and descriptions of Department of Justice deliberations.” Id. He avers that the record 

is covered by the deliberative process privilege “because it was legal analysis submitted to the 

Attorney General as part of his decisionmaking.” Id. ¶ 20. 

While these vague references to “decisionmaking” and “deliberations” did little to establish 

the first element of the deliberative process privilege, the in camera review of the record revealed 

that there was a particular, immediate decision under review to which the document pertained, that 

it also addressed another specific issue that was likely to arise as a consequence of the 

determination made with respect to the first, and that the entire memorandum was deliberative 

with respect to those decisions. The Court therefore finds that it was properly withheld under 

Exemption 5 and the deliberative process privilege.10

II. Document 15 must be released.

The unredacted portion of Document 15 that was disclosed to the plaintiff reveals this much 

about its nature and contents: 

 

10 For that reason, the Court need not reach the question of whether the memorandum, which 

did consist of legal analysis by an attorney at the Office of Legal Counsel, may be withheld under 

the attorney-client privilege.
16

A. Defendant has not met its burden to justify withholding under the deliberative 

process privilege.

The memorandum is largely deliberative. But the Court cannot find the record to be 

“predecisional,” because the materials in the record, including the memorandum itself, contradict 

the FOIA declarants’ assertions that the decision-making process they have identified was in fact 

underway. Moreover, the record supplies reason to question whether the communication preceded 

any decision that was made.
17

Paul Colborn, the Special Counsel in the OLC, states:

I am personally familiar with the withheld documents at issue in this case.

* * *

Document no. 15 is a predecisional deliberative memorandum to the 

Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General, authored by OLC 

AAG Engel and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (“PADAG”) 

Edward O’Callaghan . . . . As indicated in the portions of the memorandum 

that were released, it was submitted to the Attorney General to assist 

him in determining whether the facts set forth in Volume II of Special 

Counsel Mueller’s report “would support initiating or declining the 

prosecution of the President for obstruction of justice under the 

Principles of Federal Prosecution.” The released portions also indicate 

that the memorandum contains the authors’ recommendation in favor of a 

conclusion that “the evidence developed by the Special Counsel’s 

investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an 

obstruction-of-justice offense.” The withheld portions of the memorandum 

contain legal advice and prosecutorial deliberations in support of that 

recommendation. Following receipt of the memorandum, the Attorney 

General announced his decision publicly in a letter to the House and 

Senate Judiciary Committees . . . . 

* * *

[T]he withheld portions of document no. 15 – the only final document at 

issue – are . . . covered by the deliberative process privilege. The document 

is a predecisional memorandum, submitted by senior officials of the 

Department to the Attorney General, and containing advice and analysis 

supporting a recommendation regarding the decision he was 

considering . . . . [T]he withheld material is protected by the privilege 

because it consists of candid advice and analysis by the authors, OLC AAG 

Engel and the senior deputy to the Deputy Attorney General. That advice 

and analysis is predecisional because it was provided prior to the 

Attorney General’s decision in the matter, and it is deliberative because 

it consists of advice and analysis to assist the Attorney General in making 

that decision . . . . The limited factual material contained in the withheld 

portion of the document is closely intertwined with that advice and analysis.

Colborn Decl. ¶¶ 13, 17, 21 (emphasis added). 

The Brinkmann declaration reveals that as Senior Counsel in the DOJ Office of 

Information Policy, she is responsible for supervising the handling of the FOIA requests. 
18

Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 1. She does not claim to have any personal knowledge of why the document 

was created or what its purpose might be, and while she states generally at the beginning of the 

declaration that she consulted with “knowledgeable Department personnel,” she does not state that 

she spoke with any particular person to gain first hand information about the provenance of this 

document. Id. ¶ 3. Instead, she appears to rely on her review of the document itself to make the 

following unattributed pronouncements about the decision that is supposedly at issue: 

While the March 2019 Memorandum is a “final” document (as opposed to 

a “draft” document), the memorandum as a whole contains pre-decisional 

recommendations and advice solicited by the Attorney General and 

provided by OLC and PADAG O’Callaghan. The material that has been 

withheld within this memorandum consists of OLC’s and the PADAG’s 

candid analysis and legal advice to the Attorney General, which was 

provided to the Attorney General prior to his final decision on the matter. 

It is therefore pre-decisional. The same material is also deliberative, as it 

was provided to aid in the Attorney General’s decision-making process

as it relates to the findings of the SCO investigation, and specifically as it 

relates to whether the evidence developed by SCO’s investigation is 

sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-ofjustice offense. This legal question is one that the Special Counsel’s 

“Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 

Presidential Election” . . . did not resolve. As such, any determination 

as to whether the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense 

was left to the purview of the Attorney General.

Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).

CREW had difficulty swallowing this explanation.

DOJ’s . . . arguments rest on the demonstrably false proposition that the 

memo was submitted to the Attorney General to assist him in making a 

legitimate decision on whether to initiate or decline prosecution of the 

President for obstructing justice . . . . [H]owever, the Special Counsel 

already had made final prosecutorial judgments and the time for the 

Attorney General to challenge those judgments had passed. Whatever the 

contents of the March 24, 2019 OLC memo, it was not part of a deliberation 

about whether or not to prosecute the President.

Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Cross Mot. [Dkt. # 17-1] (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 15–16; see also id. at 15 (“The 

absence of a pending decision for the Attorney General to make necessarily means the memo did 
19

not make a recommendation or express an opinion on a legitimate legal or policy matter. Instead, 

it was part of a larger campaign initiated by Attorney General Barr to undermine the Special 

Counsel’s report and rehabilitate the President . . . .”).

What the Court can say without revealing the content of the redacted material is that there 

were two sections to this memorandum. Section I offers strategic, as opposed to legal advice, 

about whether the Attorney General should take a particular course of action, and it made 

recommendations with respect to that determination, a subject that the agency omitted entirely 

from its description of the document or the justification for its withholding. This is a problem 

because Section I is what places Section II and the only topic the agency does identify – that is, 

whether the evidence gathered by the Special Counsel would amount to obstruction of justice –

into its proper context. Moreover, the redacted portions of Section I reveal that both the authors 

and the recipient of the memorandum had a shared understanding concerning whether prosecuting 

the President was a matter to be considered at all. In other words, the review of the document 

reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the 

President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted 

was a given. The omission of any reference to Section I in the agency declarations, coupled with 

the agency’s redaction of critical caveats from what it did disclose, served to obscure the true 

purpose of the memorandum. Thus, the Court’s in camera review leads to the conclusion that the 

agency has fallen far short of meeting its burden to show that the memorandum was “prepared in 

order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision.” Formaldehyde Inst.,

889 F.2d at 1122. 

What follows is a discussion of the memorandum in its entirety. 
20 

 

 

 
21 

 

 

 

11 

DOJ made a strategic decision to pretend as if the first portion of the 

memorandum was not there

The Court is under no obligation to assess the applicability of a privilege on a ground the 

agency declined to assert; the D.C. Circuit has stated that while in camera review is permissible, 

it should be reserved for those cases when it truly necessary, and for that reason, “it ‘is not a 

substitute’ for the government’s obligation to justify its withholding in publicly available and 

debatable documents.” Schiller, 964 F.2d at 1209, quoting Lykins v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 

725 F.2d 1455, 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “We expect agencies to ensure that their submissions in 

FOIA cases are absolutely accurate.” Id.
22 

 

All of this contradicts the declarant’s ipse dixit that since the Special Counsel did not 

resolve the question of whether the evidence would support a prosecution, “[a]s such, any 

determination as to whether the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense was left to 

the purview of the Attorney General.” Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11. It also calls into question the 

accuracy of Attorney General Barr’s March 24 representation to Congress: “The Special 

Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal 

conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the 

report constitutes a crime.” March 24 Letter at 3.12 

 

12 It is true that the Special Counsel “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial 

judgment.” Report, Volume II, at 1. What the Attorney General neglected to say, though, was 

that while the Special Counsel accepted “for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction” 

the 2000 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel that that the indictment or criminal prosecution 

of a sitting President would be unconstitutional, and apart from that, he also “recognized that a 

federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s 

capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential 

misconduct,” Report, Volume II, at 1, he did not leave the matter there. Instead, the Special 

Counsel specifically informed the Attorney General:

[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the 

President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. 

Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are 

unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the 

President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from 

conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, 

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it 

also does not exonerate him. 

Footnote continues on next page. 
23 

And the in camera review of the document, which DOJ strongly resisted, see Def.’s Opp. 

to Pl.’s Cross Mot. [Dkt. # 19] (“Def.’s Opp.”) at 20–22 (“In Camera Review is Unwarranted and 

Unnecessary”), raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this 

series of representations to a court in support of its 2020 motion for summary judgment: 

[T]he March 2019 Memorandum (Document no. 15), which was released 

in part to Plaintiff is a pre-decisional, deliberative memorandum to the 

Attorney General from OLC AAG Engel and PADAG Edward O’Callaghan

. . . . The document contains their candid analysis and advice provided to 

the Attorney General prior to his final decision on the issue addressed in the 

memorandum – whether the facts recited in Volume II of the Special 

Counsel’s Report would support initiating or declining the prosecution of 

the President . . . . It was provided to aid in the Attorney General’s decisionmaking processes as it relates to the findings of the Special Counsel’s 

investigation . . . . Moreover, because any determination as to whether the 

President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense was left to the 

purview of the Attorney General, the memorandum is clearly predecisional.

Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. # 15-2] (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 14–15 (internal quotations, 

brackets, and citations omitted).13 

 

Id. at 2; see also id., Conclusion, at 182 (“[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of 

the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based 

on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”); see also 

id., Section III (B)(2), at 168–69 (finding that the separation of powers concerns that might pose a 

constitutional impediment to a criminal prosecution did not apply to Congress: “Congress can 

validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt 

intent to obstruct justice.”). This cannot be easily squared with the assurances the Attorney 

General transmitted to Congress in March of 2019 instead of the report itself. See Elec. Priv. Info. 

Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just. (“EPIC”), 442 F. Supp. 3d 37, 49 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[A] review of the 

redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court’s concurrence with Special 

Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller 

Report.”). 

13 The flourish added in the government’s pleading that did not come from either declaration 

– “PADAG O’Callaghan had been directly involved in supervising the Special Counsel’s 

investigation and related prosecutorial decisions; as a result, in that capacity, his candid 

prosecutorial recommendations to the Attorney General were especially valuable.” Id. at 14 – 

seems especially unhelpful since there was no prosecutorial decision on the table. 
24 

 

 

14

In sum, while CREW had never laid eyes on the document, its summary was considerably 

more accurate than the one supplied by the Department’s declarants.

As noted above, summary judgment may be granted on the basis of agency affidavits in 

FOIA cases, when “they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by 

evidence of agency bad faith.” Judicial Watch, Inc., 726 F.3d at 215, quoting Consumer Fed’n, 

455 F.3d at 287. 

But here, we have both. Another court in this district has expressed “grave concerns about 

the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller 

Report.” EPIC, 442 F. Supp. 3d at 48. The district court in the EPIC case undertook a close 

 

14 This effort was not without consequences. As the Special Counsel noted in his March 27 

letter to the Attorney General, the “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of [his] 

investigation” that Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter had caused “threaten[ed] to undermine 

a central purpose for which” DOJ had appointed him: “to assure full public confidence in the 

outcome of the investigation.” March 27 Letter at 1. 
25 

comparison of the Attorney General’s March 24 pronouncements and the redacted version of the 

Special Counsel’s Report that had by then been released, and the process left him uneasy. 

Although Attorney General Barr can be commended for his effort to 

expeditiously release a summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal 

conclusions in the public interest, the Court is troubled by his hurried release 

of his March 24, 2019 letter well in advance of when the redacted version 

of the Mueller Report was ultimately made available to the public. The 

speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary 

of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact 

that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of 

the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question 

whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative 

about the Mueller Report – a narrative that is clearly in some respects 

substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report. 

Id. at 49. 

And of even greater importance to this decision, the affidavits are so inconsistent with 

evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence. The review of the unredacted document 

in camera reveals that the suspicions voiced by the judge in EPIC and the plaintiff here were 

well-founded, and that not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has 

been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that 

should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency’s redactions and incomplete 

explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the 

notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision 

was on the table at any time. 

 

There is also a problem with the “pre” portion of “pre-decisional.” 

The D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Paisley, which remanded a case in which judgment had been 

entered in favor of the government, teaches that a court should be able “to ascertain whether the 
26

disputed documents played any role” in the decision the government identified. 712 F.2d at 698. 

Here, the declarations state that Attorney General Barr made the determination he communicated 

to Congress based on the advice contained in the memo. See Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11. But even 

with their significant redactions, the contemporaneous emails that were produced to CREW by the 

government in response to its FOIA request tell a different story, and this assertion in the 

declarations is inconsistent with the actual chronology.

In its summary judgment pleading, CREW directs the Court’s attention to its Exhibit A, 

which contains the series of emails produced by the defendant in response to the FOIA request that 

relate to the creation of the March 24 letter to Congress and the March 24 memorandum to Barr. 

While any drafts or proposed additions or revisions that were transmitted have been completely 

redacted from the emails, one can discern from the skeletal remains when the emails were written, 

who sent them to whom, and to which draft document they refer. See Ex. A to Pl.’s Opp. to Def’s 

Mot. [Dkt. # 16-1].15 

CREW points out that the letter to Congressional leaders and the memorandum to the 

Attorney General were being drafted simultaneously, and based on the email traffic, it argues:

Far from providing the Attorney General with a formal legal opinion based 

on its own analysis, OLC drafted the memorandum with significant input 

from the Deputy Attorney General and others in his office. See Exhibit A, 

pp. 10–20, 35–37. OLC also played an active role in editing the letter the 

Attorney General was preparing for Congress. Id. at 21–34. The two 

offices were working in tandem to create a narrative to counter the Special 

Counsel’s findings and cast the President in the most positive light possible.

Pl.’s Mem. at 15. 

 

15 The same exhibit was filed in support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

[Dkt. # 17-2].
27 

The Court has created a chart listing all of the emails in chronological order. It is attached 

to this opinion as Attachment 1 and incorporated in the opinion as part of the Court’s factual 

findings. The emails are exchanged among Stephen A. Engel, an Assistant Attorney General in 

the Office of Legal Counsel; Brian C. Rabbitt, the Chief of Staff in the Office of the Attorney 

General; Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General; and Edward C. O’Callaghan, the 

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and at least one is copied to another person in OLC: 

Henry C. Whitaker (OLC). 

A close review of the communications reveals that the March 24 letter to Congress 

describing the Special Counsel’s report, which assesses the strength of an obstruction-of-justice 

case, and the “predecisional” March 24 memorandum advising the Attorney General that

 the evidence does not support a prosecution, are 

being written by the very same people at the very same time. The emails show not only that the 

authors and the recipients of the memorandum are working hand in hand to craft the advice that is 

supposedly being delivered by OLC, but that the letter to Congress is the priority, and it is getting 

completed first. At 2:16 pm on Sunday, March 24, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff advises 

the others: “We need to go final at 2:25 pm,” and Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, 

summons everyone to a meeting at 2:17 pm. Attachment 1 at 4. At 2:18 pm, Steven Engel in the 

OLC replies to this email chain related to the draft letter, and he attaches the latest version of the 

memo to the Attorney General, saying: “here’s the latest memo, btw, although we presumably 

don’t need to finalize that as soon.” Id.; see also id. at 6 (finalizing the letter just before 5:00 pm 

on March 24 and the memorandum just before 9:00 am on March 25). In sum, the set of emails 

contained in plaintiff’s Exhibit A undermines the uninformed assertions in the declarations upon 

which the defense relies.
28

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the document is not predecisional, and it may 

not be withheld under Exemption 5 on the basis of the deliberative process privilege.16 This 

finding requires the Court to go on to the other basis for withholding proffered by the declarants: 

the attorney-client privilege.

B. The defendant has not met its burden to establish the applicability of the 

attorney-client privilege.

The DOJ declarant ties the attorney-client privilege directly to the decision she claimed 

was being made in the context of the deliberative process privilege: 

All of the information contained within the March 2019 Memorandum, 

but withheld from release to Plaintiff is also withheld pursuant to the 

attorney-client privilege of Exemption 5. The role of OLC attorneys 

includes providing “opinions to the Attorney General . . . on questions of 

law arising in the administration of the Department.” 25 C.F.R. § 0.25(c). 

In this capacity, OLC attorneys and the Attorney General maintain an 

attorney-client relationship. As described supra ¶ 7, the March 2019 

Memorandum contains OLC’s and the PADAG’s legal analysis and advice 

solicited by the Attorney General and shared in the course of providing 

confidential legal advice to the Attorney General. As such, OIP has 

determined that the attorney-client privilege, in addition to the deliberative 

process privilege, applies to the withheld portions of the March 2019 

Memorandum.

 

16 In light of this finding, the Court need not assess the sufficiency of agency’s showing 

concerning the reasonably foreseeable harm that could flow from the production of the record 

under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A). It notes, though, that the Colborn declaration did little to comply 

with that provision. He stated that disclosure “would compromise the deliberative processes of 

the Executive Branch – in this case, of the Attorney General and his senior advisers deliberating 

over an extremely high-profile prosecutorial matter and the related public statements to be made 

about that matter,” Colborn Decl. ¶ 23, but this merely recites the elements of the privilege. This 

sentence was the only time either declarant even hinted that the document had something to do

with the Attorney General’s “public statements,” but given the agency’s failure to acknowledge 

the nature of the decision-making process that was actually going on, the declaration did little to 

provide “context or insight into the specific decision-making processes or deliberations at issue, 

and how they in particular would be harmed by disclosure” of the contested records. See Judicial 

Watch, Inc., 2019 WL 4644029, at *5. 
29

Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 16.17

The Colborn declaration avers:

All of the documents at issue are also protected by the attorney-client 

privilege. The documents were prepared or revised by OLC attorneys in the 

course of carrying out OLC’s role of legal adviser to the Attorney General 

and the Department of Justice. See 25 C.F.R. § 0.25(c) (it is OLC’s 

responsibility to provide “opinions to the Attorney General and to the heads 

of the various organizational units of the Department on questions of law 

arising in the administration of the Department”). In that capacity, OLC 

attorneys maintain an attorney-client relationship with the Attorney General 

and other officials requiring legal advice from OLC, similar to the 

attorney-client relationship that the lawyers in the Office of General 

Counsel of any other agency have with the agency head and other officials. 

The factual material provided to OLC in this capacity is provided for 

purposes of developing this confidential legal advice. Having been asked 

to provide legal advice, OLC attorneys stood in a special relationship of 

trust with the Attorney General and his staff, as well as other Department 

officials. Just as disclosure of client confidences in the course of seeking 

legal advice would seriously disrupt the relationship of trust so critical when 

attorneys formulate legal advice to their clients, so too would disclosure of 

the legal advice itself undermine that trust.

Colborn Decl. ¶ 22.

The declarants emphasize that the OLC plays the unique role of “lawyers’ lawyer” within 

the Department of Justice and the executive branch as a whole, and the Court of Appeals has 

acknowledged that those lawyers can be differentiated from other government employees with law 

degrees. See, e.g., CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 846 F. 3d 1235, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“For 

decades, [OLC] has been the most significant centralized source of legal advice within the 

 

17 Plaintiff resists the application of the attorney-client privilege for reasons similar to the 

objections it raised with respect to the deliberative process privilege. “[T]he March 24 memo was 

not prepared for the purpose of providing legal advice on the sufficiency of the evidence in the 

Special Counsel Report to support prosecuting the President for obstruction of justice, as DOJ 

claims . . . . To the contrary, that decision, entrusted to the Special Counsel, already had been 

made and left undisturbed by the Attorney General.” Pl.’s Mem. at 19. According to CREW, 

“OLC’s views were instead sought to assist Attorney General Barr in making a political or strategic 

decision about how to ‘spin’ the report in a way that placed President Trump in the best light 

possible, while undermining any contrary conclusion the Special Counsel had reached.” Id. 
30 

Executive Branch . . . . Indeed, executive-branch officials seek OLC’s opinion on some of the 

weightiest matters in our public life.”) (internal quotations omitted). Other courts in this district 

have therefore recognized, based on similar declarations, that OLC opinions may be protected by 

the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101, 196 

(D.D.C. 2013); CREW v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 298 F. Supp. 3d 151, 155 (D.D.C. 2018). But it is a 

decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, and all of the prerequisites for the applicability of the 

privilege must be established. CREW v. Off. of Admin., 249 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2008) 

(holding that because an OLC memorandum did not rest upon confidential information obtained 

from the agency involved, but rather, basic factual information, it was not covered by the 

attorney-client privilege, even though it was appropriately withheld under the deliberative process 

privilege). 

Given the fact that the review of the document in camera reveals that there was no decision 

actually being made as to whether the then-President should be prosecuted,

the Court is not persuaded that the 

agency has met its burden to demonstrate that the memorandum was transmitted for the purpose 

of providing legal advice, as opposed to the strategic and policy advice that falls outside the scope 

of the privilege. Section I of the memo, which was entirely redacted with no separate justification, 

contains no legal advice at all, but it offers only strategic advice, so 

this explanation is entirely deficient to justify the withholding of that portion of the document. 

Section II is a blend of legal and strategic advice prepared, at least in part, and reviewed in 

its entirety, by an attorney within the OLC. However, since the memorandum was being written 

at the same time and by the same people who were drafting the Attorney General’s letter to 

Congress setting forth his views on the basis for a prosecution, and the record reflects that the 
31 

priority was to get the letter completed first, see Attachment 1, one simply cannot credit the 

declarant’s statement that the Attorney General made the “decision” he announced based on the 

advice the memo contains. Brinkmann states: 

The material that has been withheld within this memorandum consists of 

OLC’s and the PADAG’s candid analysis and legal advice to the Attorney 

General, which was provided to the Attorney General prior to his final 

decision on the matter.

Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11; see also Def.’s Mem. at 14 (The document contains “candid analysis and 

advice provided to the Attorney General prior to his final decision on the issue addressed in the 

memorandum – whether the facts recited in Volume II of the Special Counsel’s Report would 

support initiating or declining the prosecution of the President.”) (internal quotations omitted). 

Along with the redacted portions of the memorandum, the chronology undermines the assertion 

that the authors were engaged in providing their legal advice in connection with any sort of pending 

prosecutorial decision, and this misrepresentation, combined with the lack of candor about what 

any legal advice provided was for or about, frees the Court from the deference that is ordinarily 

accorded to agency declarations in FOIA cases.18 

There are also other problems with the agency’s showing. 

While the memorandum was crafted to be “from” Steven Engel in OLC, whom the 

declarant has sufficiently explained was acting as a legal advisor to the Department at the time, it 

also is transmitted “from” Edward O’Callaghan, identified as the Principal Associate Deputy 

Attorney General. The declarants do not assert that his job description included providing legal 

 

18 There is no need for the Court to determine what its ruling would have been had the agency 

candidly informed it that the purpose of the document

 It is the government’s burden to support 

its withholdings.
32

advice to the Attorney General or to anyone else; Colborn does not mention him at all, and 

Brinkmann simply posits, without reference to any source for this information, that the memo 

“contains OLC’s and the PADAG’s legal analysis and advice solicited by the Attorney General 

and shared in the course of providing confidential legal advice to the Attorney General.” 

Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 16.19

The declarations are also silent about the roles played by the others who were equally 

involved in the creation and revision of the memo that would support the assessment they had 

already decided would be announced in the letter to Congress. They include the Attorney 

General’s own Chief of Staff and the Deputy Attorney General himself, see Attachment 1, and 

there has been no effort made to apply the unique set of requirements that pertain when asserting 

the attorney-client privilege over communications by government lawyers to them. Therefore, 

even though Engel was operating in a legal capacity, and Section II of the memorandum includes 

legal analysis in its assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the purely hypothetical case, 

the agency has not met its burden to establish that the second portion of the memo is covered by 

the attorney-client privilege.

The government’s failure to meet its burden to establish the legal grounds for its invocation 

of the two privileges asserted means that the record must be produced. See Schiller, 

964 F.2d at 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (when courts conduct in camera review and find that the 

claimed FOIA exemptions were improper, the proper remedy is to order their disclosure); see also 

Am. Immigr. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 905 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D.D.C. 2012) (ordering 

 

19 The government’s memorandum adds that “PADAG O’Callaghan had been directly 

involved in supervising the Special Counsel’s investigation and related prosecutorial decisions,” 

Def.’s Mem. at 14, but that does not supply the information needed to enable the Court to 

differentiate among the many people with law degrees working on the matter.
33

disclosure of documents after in camera review demonstrated documents were improperly 

withheld).

The Court emphasizes that its decision turns upon the application of well-settled legal 

principles to a unique set of circumstances that include the misleading and incomplete explanations 

offered by the agency, the contemporaneous materials in the record, and the variance between the 

Special Counsel’s report and the Attorney General’s summary. This opinion does not purport to 

question or weaken the protections provided by Exemption 5 or the deliberative process and 

attorney-client privileges; both remain available to be asserted by government agencies – based on 

forthright and accurate factual showings – in the future. 

COUNT TWO

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Count Two for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Def.’s Mem. at 23–26.

FOIA specifically provides that “[a] district court of the United States shall not have 

jurisdiction to review an agency denial of expedited processing of a request for records after the 

agency has provided a complete response to the request.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv). The 

declarations establish that the responses provided to plaintiff on May 22, 2020, by OLC, and on 

June 17, 2020, by OIP constitute a complete response to the request as it was narrowed by 

agreement of the parties. Therefore, there is nothing further for the Court to adjudicate. See, e.g., 

Muttitt v. Dep’t of State, 926 F. Supp. 2d 284, 296 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Based on Edmonds [v. FBI, 

417 F.3d 1319, 1323–24 (D.C. Cir. 2005)] . . . an important question to ask in determining whether 

a requester’s claim regarding the denial of a request for expedited processing is moot is what relief 

the requester still has available if the denial is deemed incorrect.”).
34

CREW does not dispute this. It acknowledges in its opposition to the motion that while it 

was denied the benefit of the expedition that it requested, “[u]nfortunately, the FOIA provides no 

remedy for stale information.” Pl.’s Mem. at 21. It concludes that therefore, “the Court need not 

rule on DOJ’s renewed motion to dismiss.” Id. It is not entirely clear what “not ruling” means, 

particularly in light of CREW’s apparent concession that there is no role for the Court to play. But 

in its reply, CREW raised the specter of future unsupported denials of requests for expedition, and 

it urged the Court to “make clear that the reasoning of its earlier opinion denying DOJ’s motion to 

dismiss accurately states the law on exhaustion and that DOJ still has not offered a ‘reasoned 

decision’ to justify denying CREW expedition.” Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Cross Mot. [Dkt. # 21] 

(“Pl.’s Reply”) at 18. 

The FOIA provision divesting this Court of jurisdiction does not provide for the application 

of the capable of repetition yet evading review exception to mootness, see Honeywell Intern., Inc., 

v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n., 628 F.3d 568, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010); nor is it clear that the 

prerequisites have been established. So the Court finds that Count Two is moot and should be 

dismissed. It does not find it necessary to repeat itself to “make clear” that its earlier opinion was 

“accurate;” that opinion is a matter of record just like this one.

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant both motions for summary 

judgment in part and deny them in part. It will grant defendant’s motion and enter judgment in 

favor of the defendant on Count One with respect to Document 6. But defendant’s motion will be 

denied, and plaintiff’s motion will be granted with respect to Document 15, and DOJ will be 

ordered to produce the document to CREW. Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss Count Two 

will be granted, and the claim will be dismissed. 
35 

Defendant must file any motion to stay by May 17, 2021, and it must inform the Court of 

its position on whether this order may be unsealed at that time. 

 _______________________ 

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

DATE: May 3, 2021
1

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19-cv-1552

ATTACHMENT 1

Summary of Emails Contained in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 16-1] and Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for 

Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 17-2]

Participants in the communications include: Stephen A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office 

of Legal Counsel (OLC); Brian C. Rabbitt, Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney General (OAG);

1

Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General; Edward C. O’Callaghan, Principal Associate 

Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG); and Henry C. 

Whitaker (OLC).

Emails re: 3/24/19 letter to 

Congress

General emails

(topic not specified)

Emails re: 3/24/19 memo to 

AG Barr

3/22/19 8:36 pm:

Engel (OLC) to Rabbitt (OAG)

re: “draft letter” with 

attachment: “2019.03.23 SC 

Second Notification DRAFT 

3-22 2030.docx”

Engel emails “Here’s the 

latest.” Ex. A to Pl.’s Cross 

Mot. [Dkt. # 17-2] at 7.2

3/22/19 7:01 pm:

Rabbitt (OAG) emails 

“The AG and I plan to 

be here tomorrow” and 

the likely arrival time; 

Rosenstein (ODAG) 

replies that he’ll be 

there. pp. 8–9.

 

1 In communications from January 2019 that were included in the materials released to 

plaintiff and provided to the Court as plaintiff’s Exhibit A, Rabbitt’s assignment was identified as 

“OLP.” The January emails are not included in this chronology since it does not appear that the 

letter being discussed on January 13, 2019 is the same document as the March 24 letter at issue 

here. As of March 22, 2019, when the relevant communications begin, Rabbitt’s location is 

identified as “OAG.” This chronology also does not include emails contained in Exhibit A that 

post-date the completion of the memorandum at issue.

2 Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF numbers in Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for 

Summary Judgment. [Dkt. # 17-2]. Subsequent references will simply state the page. 
2

3/23/19 10:18 am:

Rabbitt to Rosenstein, 

cc: Engel, advising,

“The AG, Steve and I 

are here.” p. 8. 

3/23/19 10:18 am:

Rosenstein writes, “We are 

working on a draft letter.” 

p. 8. 

3/23/19 10:30 am:

Rabbit to Rosenstein, 

cc: Engel and O’Callaghan

(ODAG): “I understand Steve 

is as well, so we may want to

coordinate.” p. 8.

3/23/19 10:31 am:

Rosenstein responds: 

“[Redacted], but how 

about meeting with the 

AG at 10:45 to discuss 

process.” p. 8.

3/23/19 10:34 am:

Rabbitt to Rosenstein, 

cc: Engel and

O’Callaghan:

“Great. We’re working 

in the AG’s conference 

room.” p. 8. 

3/23/19 12:13 pm:

Engel emails Rabbitt with 

attachment: “2019.03.23 

Second Notification DRAFT 

3-23 1000.docx.” p. 8.

3/23/19 7:52 pm:

Engel emails Rosenstein, Rabbitt, 

O’Callaghan, Whitaker (OLC),

re: “draft memo” with attachment: 

“AG Memo 3-23 1730.docx”

“Attached is the current draft of 

the memo. I’ll probably take 

another pass and recirculate . . . . 

But for those with time and 

interest to keep going now, feel 

free to take a pass.” p. 10.
3

3/23/19 11:44 pm:

Rabbitt to Rosenstein, 

O’Callaghan, Whitaker, and Engel

transmits draft: “[T]houghts and 

comments in the attached.” p. 11.3

3/24/19 1:34 am:

Rosenstein to Rabbitt, 

O’Callaghan, Whitaker, and Engel,

transmitting proposed edits on 

multiple pages. pp. 11–12.4

3/24/19 12:58 pm:

Engel emails Rosenstein, Rabbitt, 

O’Callaghan, Whitaker, re: “draft 

memo” with attachment: “AG 

Memo 3-24 1300.docx”

“Attached is latest draft. This 

should include all of the edits 

received to date . . . . [I]n the 

interest of time, thought it ripe to 

recirculate.” p. 13.

3/24/19 1:01 pm:

Engel sends Rabbitt “the new 

paragraph.” pp. 15–16.

3/24/19 1:03 pm:

Rabbitt asks Engel: “For the 

memo, not the letter, correct?” 

p. 15.

3/24/19 1:10 pm:

Engel responds to Rabbitt: 

“correct[.]” p. 15.

3/24/19 1:40 pm:

Rosenstein sends email to Engel, 

Rabbitt, cc: O’Callaghan, 

Whitaker, re: “draft memo” saying 

“Proposed edits.” p. 18.

3/24/19 1:52 pm:

Engel responds to all with edits: 

“[Redacted]. What do you think 

about this: [redacted].” p. 18. 

 

3 The addressee line is not included, but it can be inferred from Engel’s response (“Thanks!”) 

to Rosenstein’s message on March 24, 2019, at 1:34 am, responding to Rabbit. p. 11.

4 The addressee line is not included, but it can be inferred from Engel’s response (“Thanks!”) 

to this message on March 24, 2019, at 7:57 am. p. 11.
4

3/24/19 1:59 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all is redacted 

in its entirety. pp. 17–18.

3/24/19 2:03 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “I take the point

[redacted].” p. 17.

3/24/19 2:08 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all is redacted 

in its entirety. p. 17.

3/24/19 2:09 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “done[.]” p. 17.

3/24/19 1:51 pm:

Rabbitt to O’Callaghan, Engel, 

Rosenstein, Whitaker

re: “Draft Letter”: “Proposed 

final draft attached. Please 

review ASAP and respond 

with edits.” p. 22.

3/24/19 2:05 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all 

transmits a redacted edit for 

page 2. p. 22.

3/24/19 2:08 pm:

Rabbitt’s reply-all: “Done.” 

pp. 21–22.

3/24/19 2:11 pm:

Engel’s reply-all transmits a

redacted edit for page 1. p. 21.

3/24/19 2:16 pm:

Rabbitt’s reply-all: “We need 

to go final at 2:25.” p. 21.

3/24/19 2:17 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all: “Let’s 

meet now to review the final 

version.” p. 21.

3/24/19 2:18 pm:

Engel responds to the Draft Letter 

chain with attachment: “AG Memo 

3-24 1300.docx”

“OK. here’s the latest memo, btw, 

although we presumably don’t 

need to finalize that as soon.” 

p. 21.
5

3/24/19 2:18 pm:

Rabbitt summons Rosenstein, 

Engel, O’Callaghan, and 

Whitaker to meeting at OAG

re: “Draft Letter.” p. 24.

3/24/19 3:18 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “Attached is 

the current version and a 

compare to the prior version.” p. 24.

3/24/19 3:46 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all: 

“Proposed edits attached.” 

pp. 24–25.

3/24/19 3:52 pm:

Engel’s reply-all:“Revised,

with Rod and my edits” and added something of a 

“quasi-substantive note. 

[Redacted].”

“I’m ready to finalize, subject 

to any remaining edits from 

others.” p. 23.

3/24/19 4:07 pm:

O’Callaghan’s reply-all: 

“Agree with DAG’s edits. 

Some more included.” p. 23.

3/24/19 4:13 pm:

Engel’s reply-all is redacted in 

its entirety. p. 23. 

3/24/19 4:25 pm:

Engel responds to all on

O’Callaghan’s 4:07 pm email: 

“Current draft, and here’s he 

revised [redacted] paragraph. 

If this looks good, I think we 

can finalize.” pp. 26–27.

3/24/19 4:27 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “tightened”

[redacted paragraph].” p. 26. 

3/24/19 4:29 pm:

Rosenstein’s reply-all: “A few 

proposed edits attached. How 

about meeting at 4:45 to 

finalize?” p. 26.
6

3/24/19 4:33 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “OK w me. 

OAG conference room?” 

p. 26. 

3/24/19 4:29 pm:

O’Callaghan responds to all on 

Engel’s 4:27 pm email: 

“Suggested change [redacted]. 

Edit this: [redacted] To this: 

[redacted].” p. 30.

3/24/19 4:31 pm:

O’Callaghan’s reply-all is 

redacted in its entirety. p. 30.

3/24/19 4:36 pm:

Engel’s reply-all: “[Redacted] 

in the letter.” p. 30.

3/25/19 8:52 am:

Rabbitt emails Engel, Rosenstein, 

O’Callaghan re: “2019.03.24 –

Memorandum to AG from DAG re 

Mueller Report Review.pdf”: 

“All – For your records. OAG has 

retained the original and will file 

through our exec sec process.” 

pp. 35–36.

Subsequent email exchange 

through 10:59 am concerns

changes to incorrect year in date 

on front page. p. 35.