1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RYAN SMITH ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:18-cv-00357

ORDER FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

Before: Moore, Circuit Judge; Black and Watson, District Judges.

The Republican National Committee (“RNC”), the National Republican Congressional 

Committee (“NRCC”), and Adam Kincaid (collectively, “Respondents”) received from the 

Plaintiffs subpoenas that requested the production of various documents and communications 

related to the 2011 Ohio congressional redistricting. In response, the Respondents have asserted 

that various documents and communications are covered by the First Amendment privilege, the 

attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine. See Case No. 18-mc-00031, R. 11-2 (Ex. 

A, Privilege Log) (Page ID #446–50). After receiving the privilege log, the Plaintiffs informed 

the Respondents that they were no longer seeking documents corresponding to some of the entries 

in the privilege log.1

 The Plaintiffs, however, argue that the remaining documents are neither 

subject to attorney-client nor First Amendment privilege, nor are they subject to work product 

protection, and that the documents are relevant to prove partisan intent. Therefore, they have made 

 1 These are entries REV_00023196 to REV_00023199, and entries REV_00023258 to REV_00023652. See

Reply Mem. at 13 n.8.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 101 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 938
2

a motion to compel compliance with the subpoenas. Case No. 18-mc-00031, R. 1 (Mot. to 

Compel) (Page ID #1–2).

A party responding to a subpoena must “describe the nature of the withheld documents 

[and] communications . . . in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or 

protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.” FED.R.CIV. P. 45(e)(2). Whether a privilege 

applies is often “a fact-intensive inquiry that must be applied document-by-document,” and in 

camera review is often appropriate to assist a court in this inquiry. See, e.g., Ajose v. Interline 

Brands, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1707, 2016 WL 6893866, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 23, 2016) (Order); 

see also Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting the use of in 

camera review when the First Amendment privilege is asserted). The Court must assess the 

privilege claims as they relate to the remaining contested documents in the privilege log, and the 

Court determines that it cannot do so without viewing the documents.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Respondents immediately produce to the Court 

the following documents for in camera judicial review: 

• Entries REV_00023166 through REV_00023195. See Case No. 18-mc-00031, R. 11-2 

(Ex. A, Privilege Log) (Page ID #446).

• Entries REV_00023200 through REV_00023257. See Case No. 18-mc-00031, R. 11-2 

(Ex. A, Privilege Log) (Page ID #447–48).

The Respondents shall produce these documents to each of the undersigned judges’ chambers by 

overnight delivery.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 101 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 939
3

ENTERED: 12/3/18

S/ Karen Nelson Moore

Signed for and on behalf of the panel:

HONORABLE KAREN NELSON MOORE

United States Circuit Judge

HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. BLACK

United States District Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WATSON

United States District Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 101 Filed: 12/03/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 940