Opinion ID: 44624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fifth Circuit's Application of the Law Enforcement Privilege

Text: 13 The district court found no precedent supporting a law enforcement privilege and therefore refused to apply the privilege to any portion of Petitioner's documents. Petitioner disputes that no such privilege exists in this Circuit. Petitioner relies on two Fifth Circuit cases to support its contention: Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.1970), and Swanner v. United States, 406 F.2d 716 (5th Cir.1969). 14 In Brown, this Court reviewed the dismissal of a wrongful death action in which the plaintiffs sought discovery of police reports. The district court declined to require the production of files ... on the ground that the contents were privileged and that the files concerned parts of a homicide investigation which was then still open, the contents of which were highly confidential. Brown, 430 F.2d at 1215. Upon review, this Court stated that such [g]overnment documents are the outstanding example of matter which is privileged and which is not subject to disclosure. It will expire upon the lapse of an unreasonable length of time. Whether there should be disclosure is within the discretion of the trial court.... Id. 15 In Swanner, this Court addressed whether the district court had erred in failing to require production of certain investigative files, principally for the purpose of supplying plaintiffs with the identity of two people who were under suspicion in connection with the [underlying crime]. Swanner, 406 F.2d at 718. The Swanner Court stated that pendency of a criminal investigation is a reason for denying discovery of investigative reports [, although it] would not apply indefinitely.... Id. at 719. Although concluding that the district court had not abused its discretion, this Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial in the interests of justice. Id. 16 This Circuit also has recognized the law enforcement privilege more recently. In Coughlin v. Lee, we stated that, in addition to protecting the identity of a confidential informant, [f]ederal common law recognizes a qualified privilege protecting investigative files in an ongoing criminal investigation. 946 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1991). In that case, the district court had limited discovery of police files because it considered those files irrelevant to the plaintiffs' freedom of speech claim. Id. at 1160. On remand, we instructed the district court to review the documents instead for discoverability on the basis of the law enforcement privilege. Id. 17 Our case law has acknowledged the existence of a law enforcement privilege beyond that allowed for identities of confidential informants. 1 Moreover, in today's times the compelled production of government documents could impact highly sensitive matters relating to national security. Therefore, the reasons for recognizing the law enforcement privilege are even more compelling now than when Brown, Swanner, and Coughlin were decided. Such a privilege should have been recognized by the district court. 2 The court legally erred in refusing to do so. Petitioner also is correct that the error of ordering the discovery of potentially privileged documents, without judicial review of the those documents, would be irremediable on appeal. See In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d at 317. Hence, Petitioner has no other means to obtain the relief sought. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). 18 Yet, this Court does not know whether any of the disputed documents fall within the realm of the privilege. The documents were not presented for our review. In any event, determining privilege is a particularistic and judgmental task of balancing the need of the litigant who is seeking privileged investigative materials ... against the harm to the government if the privilege is lifted. Dellwood Farms v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir.1997). In this case, we think this task — the determination of privilege following an initial review of the documents — is best left to the district court. 19