General Motors Corporation et al v. United States of America, No. 2:2007cv14464 - Document 65 (E.D. Mich. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER After In Camera Review. Signed by District Judge Victoria A Roberts. (LVer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and SATURN CORPORATION, Case No. 07-14464 Plaintiffs, Hon. Victoria A. Roberts v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld by Defendant Under Claims of Deliberative Process Privilege [Doc. 49]. On October 30, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff s Motion. The Court ordered the Government to produce 10 Category 2 documents for an in camera review by the Court. The Court reserved opinion on those documents pending completion of its in camera review. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part with respect to those documents. II. ANALYSIS In response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, the Government cited only the deliberative process privilege with respect to these Category 2 documents. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the 10 post-publication documents only with respect to the 1 deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege shields intra-governmental communications relating to matters of law or policy from disclosure. See National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Forest Service, 861 F.2d 1114, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 1988). The deliberative process privilege is narrowly construed. Redland Soccer Club v. Dept. of Army of the U.S., 55 F.3d 827, 856 (3rd Cir. 1995). To come within the deliberative process privilege, a document must be both "predecisional," meaning it is "received by the decision maker on the subject of the decision prior to the time the decision is made," and "deliberative," the result of the consultative process . . . . Rugiero v. United States Department of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir. 2001). With these principles in mind, the Court finds: 1. The deliberative process privilege does not apply to Bates Nos. US-10069, US-10070,US-10071, US-10072, US-10073, US-10076, US-10078, US-10079, US10082, US-10083, US-10084, US-10085, US-10086 and US-11273. These documents must be produced, absent another privilege. 2. The deliberative process privilege applies to Bates No. US-11296, US-11297, and Treas 1 - Treas 9. These documents are not discoverable. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS ORDERED. s/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge Dated: December 23, 2009 2 The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on December 23, 2009. s/Linda Vertriest Deputy Clerk 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
