ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Doc. 152.) With its motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents withheld by Defendant Delaware River Basin Commission ("DRBC" "Defendant") based on DRBC's assertion of the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client privilege. (Id.) Plaintiff raises several issues regarding Defendant's assertion of privilege and seeks in camera review of the documents withheld to determine if the documents fall within the asserted privilege. (Id. at 10-11.) Following the Court's in camera review of the documents identified in the Privilege Log (Doc. 152-1 at 16-31), the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion in part and deny it in part for the reasons discussed below.
On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff Wayne Land & Mineral Group LLC ("WLMG" "Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendant Delaware River Basin Commission (the "DRBC"). (Doc. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a declaratory judgment holding that DRBC "does not have jurisdiction over, or the authority to review and approve, or to require WLMG to seek prior approval from the [DRBC] for, or to otherwise preclude the development of, WLMG's proposed well pad, appurtenant facilities or the related activities to be carried out on the Property." (Doc. 1 at 18.) WLMG owns approximately 180 acres of land, including the natural gas and minerals present on the land, in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 ¶ 12.) Approximately 75 acres of the land owned by WLMG is located in the Delaware River Basin. (Id.)
Intervenors-Defendants the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Maya K. Van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper (collectively referred to as the "DRN") filed a motion to intervene on July 5, 2015, (Doc. 10) which the Court granted on September 12, 2016, (Doc. 26).
On March 23, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Delaware River Basin Commission's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 12) and closed the case. (Doc. 93.) Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Doc. 94.) The Circuit Court entered Judgment on July 3, 2018, ordering that the District Court's Order entered on March 23, 2017, be vacated and the case be remanded to this Court for further proceedings. (Doc. 97.)
Following remand, the Court reopened the case (Doc. 98) and, on August 27, 2018, issued an Order establishing the pretrial schedule (Doc. 107). The schedule included the directive that "all fact discovery shall be completed by December 19, 2018." (Doc. 107 at 2 ¶ 3.) The Court's December 4, 2018, Order rescinded that deadline (Doc. 124 at 2 ¶ 5), and the Order of June 4, 2019, established that fact discovery "shall be completed by September 9, 2019" (Doc. 134 at 2 ¶ 6).
The Court recently decided Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 138) filed on August 19, 2019. (See Docs. 163, 164.) Following in camera review of the documents at issue, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion in part and denied it in part, concluding that only one document was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the documents protected by the deliberative process privilege were to be disclosed because Plaintiff's need for the documents outweighed Defendant's interest in nondisclosure. (Doc. 163 at 33-34.)
Plaintiff filed the motion under consideration here on December 11, 2019. (Doc. 152.) The motion was accompanied by a supporting brief. (Doc. 153.) Defendant filed its opposition brief (Doc. 157) on December 26, 2019, and Plaintiff filed a reply brief (Doc. 158) on January 9, 2020. In the Privilege Log submitted, Defendant identified forty-five (45) Document Numbers which it withheld in whole or in part based on the assertion of the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, or both. (Doc. 152-1 at 16-31.) On January 17, 2020, the Court directed Defendant to submit the documents to the Court for in camera review (Doc. 160), and Defendant timely produced the required documents.
As the Court has previously explained,
(Doc. 67 at 2-3 (internal citations omitted).)
At issue in this action is Section 3.8 of the Compact which provides for DRBC's review of a "project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin." In considering Defendant Delaware River Basin Commission's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 12), the Court determined that the issue presented the need to interpret terms of the contract, specifically the meaning of "project" under Section 1.2(g) as informed by the meaning of "water resources" under Section 1.2(i). (Doc. 92 at 40.) The Court granted the motion to dismiss based on the following findings:
(Doc. 92 at 43.) The Circuit Court confirmed that the Compact was to be "construed as a contract under the principles of contract law." Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC v. Delaware River Basin Commission, 894 F.3d 509, 527 (3d Cir. 2018). However, the Circuit Court disagreed with this Court's determination that the proposed activities constituted a "project," concluding that "the meaning of the word `project' as used in the compact is ambiguous" and, therefore, the district court's decision on the merits was premature. Id. The Circuit Court explained that
894 F.3d at 527. The Circuit Court further found that these interpretive tools require factual determinations to be made about the Compact drafters' intent and
Id. at 534.
Turning now to the motion at issue, the Court has conducted in camera review of the documents Defendant withheld based on privilege. Mindful of the general principle that evidentiary privileges are to be strictly construed, see University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990), the Court has considered all documents in the context of the deliberative process privilege and/or the attorney-client privilege.
Defendant asserts that the attorney-client privilege applies to Document Numbers 24 through 45. (Doc. 152-1 at 28-31.) Plaintiff objects to the assertion of the privilege regarding the documents at issue, which it characterizes as "historical documents from the 1960s" held in public project files before being withheld. (Doc. 153 at 7.) Defendant responds that project review files are not public and the passage of time does not erode the attorney-client privilege. (Doc. 157 at 2, 3, 13 n.7.) For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Defendant properly asserts the attorney-client privilege as to many but not all of the documents withheld.
In general, the attorney-client privilege limits the normally broad disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 which provides that relevant but privileged matters are not discoverable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party asserting attorney-client privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege applies. Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled February 14, 1978, 603 F.2d 469, 474 (3d Cir.1979) (citing United States v. Lansdorf, 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9
In the government agency context, the agency may be considered the "client" and the agency lawyer the "attorney." Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service, 117 F.3d 607, 618 (D.C.Cir.1997). In considering the attorney-client privilege in the executive branch context, the District of Columbia Circuit Court concluded that an attorney's "advice on political, strategic, or policy issues, valuable as it may have been, would not be shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege" based on the principle that "`where one consults an attorney not as a lawyer but as a friend or as a business adviser or banker, or negotiator ... the consultation is not professional nor the statement privileged.'" In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting 1 McCormick on Evidence § 88, at 322-24 (4th ed. 1992)).
Plaintiff specifically contends that Defendant's assertion of attorney-client privilege should be rejected on several bases: 1) the documents being withheld based on the privilege were "housed in the Commission's public `project files' but were removed by the Commission prior to WLMG's review of those files for discovery" (Doc. 153 at 7); 2) Defendant does not satisfy its burden of showing that the documents at issue are protected by the attorney-client privilege because the "cryptic descriptions" set out in the Privilege Log do not provide sufficient detail for the Court to determine "whether the document is at least potentially protected from disclosure" (id. at 9-10 (citing Farkas v. French Coast Coffee, Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:14-CV-272, 2016 WL 4611427, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2016)); and 3) the privilege was waived with respect to Document 32 because the Memorandum was sent to multiple third parties (Doc. 153 at 10).
First, regarding Plaintiff's assertion that the documents were housed in "public `project files'" (Doc. 153 at 7), Defendant states that its project review files are not "`public' files" (Doc. 157 at 2). Plaintiff does not address this issue in its reply brief (Doc. 158), and therefore, does not refute Defendant's position. The Court thus assumes that the project files were not public and waiver cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the withheld information was contained in project files.
Second, the question of whether the descriptions set out in the Privilege Log are sufficient to allow the Court to determine whether the document is protected is not relevant at this juncture because the Court agreed to conduct the in camera review requested by Plaintiff and, in deciding whether a document is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the Court relies on independent in camera review of the entire document, not on Defendant's description of it.
Having reviewed the twenty-two documents withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the Court concludes that Document Numbers 24 through 28, 30, 31, 34, and 36 through 45, satisfy the necessary criteria.
Document Number 29 is not protected because the correspondence, from DRBC General Counsel William Miller to DRBC Executive Director James Wright, is plainly marked "PERSONAL" and the body of the correspondence references an enclosure which was sent to Miller "not for official purposes, but `as one lawyer to another.'" The protection of the attorney-client privilege is only available when the document is "for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client." In re Chevron Corp., 650 F.3d at 289 (internal quotation omitted). Document 29 does not satisfy this basic requirement and, therefore, is not protected under the attorney-client privilege. As Defendant does not identify any other basis for withholding the document, the Court concludes Document Number 29 must be disclosed.
Document Number 32 is a letter from DRBC's Executive Director James Wright dated March 29, 1965, to Rex Whitton, Federal Highway Administrator at the United States Department of Commerce, with an attached Memorandum titled "Effect of Interstate 80 on Hackettstown Reservoir" written by DRBC's General Counsel William Miller to "The Commissioners and Executive Director." Defendant claims that the Document is protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process privilege. As to attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff maintains that the privilege was waived because the Memorandum was also attached to a letter dated June 3, 1965, which was sent to multiple third parties outside DRBC. (Doc. 153 at 10 (citing Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1427 (3d Cir.1991) (`under traditional waiver doctrine a voluntary disclosure to a third party waives the attorney-client privilege even if the third party agrees not to disclose the communications to anyone else.").)
Defendant responds that it has not waived the attorney-client privilege for Miller's Memorandum because the governmental agencies and personnel that received the Memorandum shared a common interest with DRBC Commissioners and staff sufficient to preserve the privilege. (Doc. 157 at 14 (citing Animal Welfare Inst. v. Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., 370 F.Supp.3d 116, 132-43 (D.D.C. 2019)).)
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 493 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2007), tracked the development of the "common-interest privilege," which it also referred to as the "community-of-interest" privilege, and explained that it
In re Teleglobe Commc'ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 364 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Oct. 12, 2007). Importantly, the privilege addresses waiver of the attorney-client privilege so the first step in the relevant inquiry is whether the attorney-client privilege applies to the original communication at issue. In re Chevron Corp., 650 F.3d 276, 290 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing In re Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 366) ("inasmuch as the communications disclosed were not privileged, it is obvious that we need not address the community-of-interest doctrine, which protects the confidentiality of privileged communications shared by parties with common legal interests against a common adversary.")
In his Declaration, Executive Director Tambini describes Document 32 as a letter and attached memorandum regarding federal projects prepared by DRBC's General Counsel, William Miller, and sent to the Federal Highway Administrator, Rex Whitton. (Doc. 152-1 at 13.) Tambini assumes that Document 32 is protected by the attorney-client privilege, but he provides no explanation for the assumption that a communication from DRBC's Executive Director to an official at another agency would be protected by the attorney-client privilege or why the Executive Director's dissemination of a memorandum would be so privileged. In its opposition brief, DRBC states that it has not waived the attorney-client privilege regarding the memorandum based on the common-interest privilege, but it does not address the issue of whether the attorney-client privilege attached to the letter and/or the disclosed memorandum. (Doc. 157 at 14-16.)
The letter portion of Document 32 does not satisfy the requirements of the attorney-client privilege in that it is not a communication between privileged persons. See, e.g., Chevron, 650 F.3d at 289. More specifically, in the government agency context, the agency may be considered the "client" and the agency lawyer the "attorney." Tax Analysts, 117 F.3d at 618. Executive Director Wright is not DRBC's attorney and the Federal Highway Administration is not the client agency. While Miller's Memorandum to Wright and the Commissioners may have been privileged in the first instance because Miller was DRBC's General Counsel and his Memorandum was directed to DRBC officials, Wright disclosed the Memorandum to Whitton and "[d]isclosing a communication to a third party unquestionably waives the privilege." Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 481.
Under Teleglobe, Defendant's assertion of the common-interest privilege is unavailing because Miller's Memorandum was not shared by DRBC's attorney with the Federal Highway Administration's attorney; it was shared by the Executive Director with the Federal Highway Administrator. Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 364 ("the community-of-interest privilege allows attorneys representing different clients with similar legal interests to share information.... Sharing the communication directly with a member of the community may destroy the privilege"). Further, less than three months later, Richard Hughes, identified as "Chairman" in a letter he sent on DRBC letterhead
Animal Welfare, upon which Defendant relies, arguably took a broader approach to the common-interest privilege and explained the privilege as follows:
370 F. Supp. 3d at 133. In Animal Welfare, the draft memorandum at issue was produced by a government attorney for an agency client, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA"), the defendant in the litigation. 370 F. Supp. 3d at 131. The district court determined that the draft memorandum was covered by the attorney-client privilege. Id. NOAA later shared the draft memorandum with two other agencies, the Marine Mammal Commission ("MMC") and Fish and Wildlife Services ("FWS"). The court concluded that sharing the document with MMC and FWS did not waive the attorney-client privilege because the common interest doctrine protected the third-party disclosure: the MMC had oversight responsibilities, i.e., ensuring that all agencies, including NOAA, adhered to the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"); and FWC and NOAA had a common legal interest in that they had similar responsibilities under the MMPA. Id. at 133-34. Animal Welfare did not discuss whether the third-party disclosure had been made by an attorney and/or to an attorney or acknowledge such a requirement. Therefore, in Animal Welfare, the District of Columbia District Court did not consider a key element to the application of the common-interest privilege identified by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 364.
As discussed above, here DRBC officials shared the Miller Memorandum with numerous agencies and individuals. Even if the Court were to overlook the Teleglobe attorney-to-attorney communication requirement, Defendant has not shown that all of those to whom Wright and Hughes sent the Memorandum shared "a substantial identity of legal interest" because they were "engaged in a common effort and [sought] the advice of counsel about fulfilling their statutory mission." Animal Welfare, 370 F. Supp. 3d at 133. Defendant states only that the recipients of the Miller Memorandum "shared a common legal interest in the proper administration of the Compact with respect to a federal highway project, and distribution of Miller's memorandum was in furtherance of such common interest." (Doc. 157 at 15-16.) As argued in Plaintiff's reply brief, "[u]nlike the federal agencies involved in Animal Welfare, which each had express responsibilities under the MMPA, none of foregoing recipients of the 1965 Miller memorandum, aside from being involved in federal or state government generally, have any responsibilities under the Compact." (Doc. 158 at 6.) On this record, Defendant's broad assertion that the need for cooperation "between the Commission and other instrumentalities of the federal government regarding federal projects that may affect the water of related land resources of the Delaware River Basin" (Doc. 157 at 15), does not satisfy its burden of showing a substantially similar legal interest in the matter at issue. Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant has not shown that it did not waive the attorney-client privilege regarding the Miller Memorandum. With this determination, Document Number 32 must be disclosed unless application of the deliberative process privilege, which Defendant also claims, indicates a different result.
Document Number 33 is not protected from disclosure because there is no indication that any of the three communications contained therein satisfy the requirements of the attorney-client privilege. The note from "Buzz" to "Herb" references "Miller" and his "advice," but the mention of an attorney's name does not satisfy any necessary requirement. There is no indication that Herb and Buzz have an attorney-client relationship or that the communication was confidential and sought or provided legal assistance. Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 359. The letter from V. J. Burns, Deputy Chief Engineer of the New York Department of Public Works, to Miller, DRBC's General Counsel, does not satisfy the application of the attorney-client privilege in the government agency context where the agency may be considered the "client" and the agency lawyer the "attorney," Tax Analysts, 117 F.3d at 618, in that the agency seeking advice is the New York Department of Public Works and Miller is the lawyer for DRBC. Milller's response to Burns is not privileged for the same reason, i.e., the communication is not between client and attorney. Because the attorney-client privilege is the only privilege asserted as to Document Number 33, this Document must be disclosed.
Document Number 35 is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the recipient is unknown, and, therefore, the Court is unable to determine whether the communication is between privileged persons.
With the foregoing conclusions, Document Numbers 29, 32, 33, and 35 are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Document Numbers 24 through 28, 30, 31, 34, and 36 through 45 are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and, with the exception of Document 28, they are protected from disclosure in their entirety. Document 28 must be disclosed except for the two sentences redacted in green at pages 2 and 4 of the eleven-page document as this is the only material for which Defendant seeks protection. See supra p. 10 n.3. Although Document Number 32 is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, because Defendant claims that it is also protected by the deliberative process privilege, the Court will determine whether it must be disclosed following consideration of whether it is protected by the deliberative process privilege.
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's assertion of the deliberative process privilege should be rejected, and, if the Court finds documents privileged in whole or in part, it should conclude that the documents should be produced because the required balancing of interests shows that the need for production outweighs the benefits of the application of the privilege. (Doc. 153 at 4-5.) Defendant responds that the deliberative process privilege applies to the documents withheld on the basis of the privilege and Plaintiff has not shown a substantial need for the documents. (Doc. 157 at 7-8.) After conducting in camera review, the Court concludes that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to a number of the documents, and, where it applies, in some instances the need for production outweighs Defendant's interest in the privacy of its internal deliberations.
The deliberative process privilege protects "the decision making processes of government agencies" and, in particular, "documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated." N. L. R. B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975) (internal quotations omitted). As summarized in Paul F. Rothstein and Susan W. Crump, Federal Testimonial Privileges Relating to Witnesses & Documents in Federal-Law Case § 5:3 (2d ed. 2006), the deliberative process privilege, also known as the "Inter- and Intra-Agency Deliberative Communication Privilege," "protects from disclosure those communications within the federal government, and between the government and its duly retained outside consultants, which consist of advice, recommendations, opinions, and other information transfers involved in the deliberative and policymaking processes of the government agency." The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit described the privilege as one which "permits the government to withhold documents containing `confidential deliberations of law or policymaking, reflecting opinions, recommendations or advice.'" Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep't of Army of U.S., 55 F.3d 827, 853 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d 946, 959 (3d Cir. 1987)). The ultimate purpose of the privilege "is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions." NLRB, 421 U.S. at 151.
Considered in the context of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Redland noted that, in analyzing the government's assertion of privilege,
55 F.3d at 856.
Because the privilege "`protects agency documents that are both predecisional and deliberative,'" Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 488 F.3d 178, 183 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006)), the government must show that the document satisfies both requirements.
To satisfy the predecisional prong of the inquiry, the proponent of the privilege must show that the document is "actually antecedent to the adoption of a policy or arrival at a decision." Rothstein & Crump, supra, § 5.3. However, in NLRB, the Court noted that the agency need not have actually reached a final decision or issued a final policy to be afforded protection of a document:
NLRB, 421 U.S. at 153 n.18.
To satisfy the deliberative prong of the inquiry, the document for which protection is sought must be "actually related to the process by which the policy was formulated or decision reached." Rothstein & Crump, supra, § 5.3. The privilege distinguishes between opinions, which are protected, and facts, which fall outside of the privilege: factual material is not protected as long as it is severable from the deliberative information, even if the factual information is located in an otherwise privileged document. Redland, 55 F.3d at 854; In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d at 959.
Factors to consider in determining whether a document is predecisional and part of the deliberative process include the following: 1) the identity and position of the author and recipient; 2) the contents of the document; 3) the timing of the document relative to the decision at issue; and 4) the status of the document as an opinion or recommendation. Rothstein & Crump, supra, § 5.3.
"The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. This need determination is to be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis." In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
"[E]ach time it is asserted the district court must undertake a fresh balancing of the competing interests." In re Subpoena Served Upon Comptroller of Currency, & Sec'y of Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 967 F.2d 630, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As explained in Redland,
55 F.3d at 854.
With this extensive guidance, the Court will now proceed to review the documents withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.
In support of the assertion of the deliberative process privilege, DRBC Executive Director Tambini states in his Declaration that
(Doc. 152-1 at 13.) In its opposition brief, Defendant essentially reiterates Tambini's assertions. (See Doc. 157 at 7-8.)
Plaintiff objects to the assertion of the deliberative process privilege on the basis that the Privilege Log is unreliable. First, Plaintiff avers that Defendant asserted the privilege "to pull relevant documents from the Stone Energy docket.... As its privilege log and related production demonstrates, it has selectively invoked deliberate [sic] process privilege over certain documents, while producing others involving the very same subject matter and participants." (Doc. 153 at 4.) Defendant responds that its "assertion of the deliberative process privilege over only twenty-six of the thousands of documents in DRBC's project files" is not defective, but is "precisely how the deliberative process privilege is required to be invoked." (Doc. 157 at 6-7.) Earlier in its brief, Defendant stated that the documents were withheld when Plaintiff requested review of "the project files for the first twenty dockets issued by the Commission, and those for certain specific dockets including Docket D-2009-18-1 issued to Stone Energy for its Matoushek 1 Well Site shale gas exploration and development project." (Id. at 4.) Although it is noteworthy that the documents withheld all relate to the Stone Energy dockets when review of twenty other dockets was requested (id. at 3-4), the Court will not further consider this issue because the first twenty dockets are not of record such that the Court could conduct a comparison of the earlier dockets and the Stone Energy dockets. Moreover, judicial efficiency counsels against such a comparison where the Court will undertake de novo review of the Document Numbers for which Defendant asserts the deliberative process privilege. See supra p. 6 n.2.
Plaintiff further asserts that the privilege log is not reliable because, in some instances, Defendant has produced documents that appear to contain the same information for which the deliberative process privilege is asserted. (Doc. 153 at 4 (citing Privilege Log Document Numbers 1, 6, 7, and 23).) Defendant responds that the corresponding documents which it produced "were produced in error, and this inadvertent production was not intended to serve as a voluntary waiver of an assertion of privilege." (Doc. 157 at 6 n.1 (citing Redland, 55 F.3d at 856).) Defendant further states that the documents produced are "clearly predecisional and deliberative communications that would properly be protected by the deliberative process privilege." (Id.) Plaintiff replies that Defendant must do more than claim inadvertency and Defendant has not done so here. (Doc. 158 at 2 (citing Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Owlett & Lewis, P.C., 297 F.R.D. 232, 240-41 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (applying Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), by analogy, to inadvertent disclosure of confidential mediation documents and a non-testifying expert report)).)
The Court does not find a basis to conclude that the assertedly inadvertent disclosure of four documents renders all assertions of the deliberative process privilege unreliable. However, the Court will consider the narrower question of whether Defendant's inadvertent disclosure of documents allegedly protected by the deliberative process privilege waived the privilege as to those documents. Based on Bayliss v. New Jersey State Police, 622 F. App'x 182, 186 (3d Cir. 2015) (not precedential), the Court will consider Defendant's post-disclosure conduct in determining whether the privilege was waived.
The Third Circuit panel in Bayliss considered whether the deliberative process privilege was waived and agreed that it was not
622 F. App'x at 186. The panel's analysis shows that it applied the attorney-client privilege and work product inadvertent disclosure considerations of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) to the deliberative process privilege. Rule 502(b) provides as follows:
Fed. R. Evid. 502(b).
As noted above, Defendant asserts in a footnote that the disclosure of privileged material was inadvertent. (See Doc. 157 at 6 n.1.) However, Defendant does not address the steps it took to prevent disclosure. More importantly, Defendant does not address what steps it took to rectify the error which it became aware of, at the latest, when Plaintiff filed the Motion and supporting brief under consideration here on December 11, 2019. (See Docs. 152, 153.) Unlike the defendant in Bayliss, Defendant did not immediately request return of the inadvertently disclosed documents or notify Plaintiff of its inadvertent disclosure. On this record, the Court cannot conclude that the disclosed documents are entitled to protection under the deliberative process privilege. Therefore, Document Numbers 1, 6, 7, and 23 are not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Document Numbers 1, 6, and 23 must be disclosed in their entirety. Because only the first three pages of Document Number 7 were disclosed (see Doc. 152-1 Ex. G, pp. 71-73), the remaining seven pages of Document Number 7, which contain confidential contact information, are not subject to disclosure based on waiver. Defendant does not seek protection of this portion of Document Number 7 based on the deliberative process privilege but refers to it as a "Confidential Attachment" about which the District of New Jersey Court instructed the parties to meet and confer concerning its production. This Court will do the same.
Beyond these specific reasons for rejecting the deliberative process privilege, Plaintiff maintains that
(Doc. 153 at 5-6.)
As discussed in the context of Plaintiff's earlier Motion to Compel (Doc. 138), the Court takes a broad view of the Third Circuit's directives regarding the relevant inquiry on remand, see Wayne Land, 894 F.3d at 534, and agrees with Plaintiff's assessment that any evidence which bears on the question of intent in the documents withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege should be disclosed. (See Doc. 163 at 22-33.) The Court also takes into account the Circuit Court's notation that Plaintiff agreed at oral argument that "`there can be components of an undertaking that can be a project.'" 894 F.3d at 533 (quoting Oral Arg. Tr., Nov. 7, 2017, at 8:23-24). Of further significance in the balancing of interests is the fact that DRBC considered the Stone Energy dockets to be prototypes and those who reviewed the draft dockets considered them as such. See, e.g., Document Number 1.
Turning now to whether Document Numbers 2 through 5, 8 through 22, and 32 are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege, the Court finds that they satisfy the first prong of the analysis. Document Numbers 2 through 5 and 8 through 22 are predecisional because they relate to draft Stone Energy dockets. They are deliberative because interested parties share their impressions, opinions, and suggestions for revision of the drafts, and are "actually related to the process" by which decisions on the dockets were reached. See Rothstein & Crump, supra, § 5.3. Although the Document Numbers contain factual material that falls outside the privilege, the interweaving of fact and deliberative information in the documents is not practically severable. See Redland, 55 F.3d at 854; In re Grand Jury, 821 F.2d at 959.
Document 32 is predecisional because it relates to the funding of an alteration in a proposed federal highway project needed to avoid impinging on a reservoir within the Delaware River Basin. It is deliberative because the letter and attached Memorandum share opinions and impressions on the issue.
Although Document Numbers 2 through 5, 8 through 22, and 32, are protected by the deliberative process privilege, the Court concludes that Defendant has waived the privilege as to Document Numbers 14 and 32. Defendant acknowledges in its description of Category 4 that Document Number 14, which is included in Category 4, was produced in Del. Riverkeeper Network v. DRBC except for the material redacted in yellow. If the disclosure was voluntary, Defendant waived the deliberative process privilege when it disclosed the material. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 741-42 (concluding that agency's voluntary disclosure of documents waived the deliberative process privilege). Defendant does not claim that the disclosure was inadvertent or otherwise seek to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) which, for the reasons discussed above, see supra pp. 24-26, the Court has determined apply to inadvertent disclosure of material claimed to be protected by the deliberative process privilege. Therefore, Document Number 14 must be produced except for the redactions in yellow which were not previously disclosed.
Similarly, Document Number 32 was voluntarily disclosed to individuals who were not directly involved in the matter at issue. See supra pp. 11, 14-17. Therefore, Defendant waived the deliberative process privilege as to Document Number 32 and it must be produced in its entirety.
Because Document Numbers 2 through 5, 8 through 13, and 15 through 22, are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege and Defendant has not waived the privilege as to these documents, the Court will now turn to the question of whether Plaintiff's need for the Documents (or the redacted material contained therein) outweighs Defendant's interest in their confidentiality. Having carefully reviewed the Document Numbers at issue, the Court finds limited instances in which Plaintiff's need outweighs Defendant's interest in confidentiality. In most instances where Plaintiff's need is predominant, specific comments regarding the docket under review are raised in the broader context of concerns about Marcellus shale activities in the Delaware River Basin and/or DRBC's authority over related matters. As such, these comments and/or responses thereto may be relevant to the intended ceding of powers of member states, the parties' course of performance, and other issues that may bear on the question of intent.
Regarding the Redland balancing factors, 55 F.3d at 854, Defendant first asserts that "the subjective views of Commissioners and staff exchanged during the give-and-take of agency decision making in 2009 when developing the dockets" are not relevant to the inquiry required by the Third Circuit—the drafter's intent as to the meaning of the term "project." (Doc. 157 at 9.) However, as discussed in the Court's January 31, 2020, Memorandum Opinion, the documents at issue need not address the meaning of the term "project" to be relevant. (Doc. 163 at 25-26 (citations omitted).) Communications from State personnel may be indicative of their understanding of the ceding of control over the waters of the Basin and related activities within their own territories under the Compact. (Id. (citations omitted).) Further, such documents may be relevant to the parties' course of performance under the Compact which is not limited to what DRBC has historically officially determined to be a project. (Id. at 26-27 (citations omitted).) Indeed, what happened behind the scenes can shed light on what the parties believe to be within the purview of the Compact. (Id.) Finally, the broad construction of the "course of performance" concept in the interstate compact context is particularly significant in a situation where, as here, the interpretive task seeks to discern how the drafters would have considered activities that did not exist and could not have been anticipated at the time the compact was drafted and ratified. (Id. at 27-28.)
The Court also rejects Defendant's arguments regarding the remaining Redland factors, i.e., the availability of other evidence; the "seriousness" of the litigation and the issues involved; the role of the government in the litigation; and "the possibility of future timidity by government employees who will be forced to recognize that their secrets are violable," 55 F.3d at 854. (See Doc. 257 at 10-13.) As discussed in the January 31, 2020, Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's production of voluminous evidence does not preclude the production of additional evidence in the circumstances presented here; whether Plaintiff's planned activities and facilities constitute a "project" is a serious question with potentially broad implications; the government's role in the litigation is sufficient to support disclosure of the documents; and the effect of disclosure on future deliberations does not weigh in Defendant's favor because the wide dissemination and subject matter of the material contradict its characterization as secretive. (See Doc. 163 at 29-33 (citations omitted).)
Having conducted the requisite balancing of Document Numbers 2 through 5, 8 through 13, and 15 through 22, the Court concludes that the following redacted material is in the category outlined above, i.e., Plaintiff's need for the material outweighs Defendant's interest in confidentiality.
For the reasons set out above, the Court has made the following determinations: 1) Document Numbers 24 through 28, 30, 31, 34, and 36 through 45 are protected in whole or in part by the attorney-client privilege and the protected material is not discoverable; 2) Document Numbers 2, 5, 10, 11, 15, 17 through 20, and 22 are protected by the deliberative process privilege and, because the need for disclosure does not outweigh the need for confidentiality, the protected material in these Document Numbers is not discoverable; 3) Document Numbers 1, 6, 7, 14, 23, 29, 32, 33, 35 are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the deliberative process privilege and must be disclosed for the reasons discussed in the body of this Memorandum Opinion;
300 F.R.D. at 212-13.
