Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

I'm a bit confused by the process of how an objection comes into play.
When a document is entered into the privilege log how does the plaintiff determine whether or not to object, do they get an opportunity to view it ?

There are Federal Rules and local court rules for privilege logs, specifically FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) and RCFC 26(b)(5)(A). See sources below.

A privilege log usually has the following document information:

1. Title
2. Type
3. Date
4. Author
5. Recipients
6 CC
7. Subject matter/content
8. Privilege claimed

Here is an image of a privilege log: https://vbreton2062.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/privilege-log-flag-matteo-rosetti-001.jpg

The plaintiff's counsel reviews the privilege log to determine to object or not to certain documents listed there. However, they do not review the actual documents noted in the logs.

The statement , "When the integrity of the deliberative process itself is an issue in the case, the deliberative process privilege cannot be invoked to foreclose inquiry into those deliberations", how is "integrity" defined as an issue ?

Integrity can be defined in a number of ways including a deliberative process that evidences misconduct, dishonesty, deception, corruption, illegalities, etc.

And if I can ask your indulgence, what is meant by "some undefined minimal evidentiary threshold" as stated below ?

"Similarly, courts have stated that the deliberative process privilege
is negated when the party seeking discovery has provided “reason
to believe” that governmental misconduct will be uncovered by the
requested material.60 However, bare allegations of misconduct
are not enough.61 To activate this per se exception, the litigant
must meet some undefined minimal evidentiary threshold.62"

There does not exist a list of specific and substantial criteria or facts, a minimum of which, must be presented by the plaintiff to the court so that the court can negate the deliberative process privilege based on such evidence providing a "reason to believe" that governmental misconduct has occurred and will be uncovered if the evidence is admitted.

Substantial in this use means significant, material, real versus insignificant, illusory, imaginary.

So, whatever evidence is presented by the plaintiff, it must be substantial enough (minimal evidentiary threshold) to move a judge's reason to believe that government misconduct may have occurred.

Source:
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/court_info/20140701_rules/14.07.01%20Final%20Version%20of%20Rules.pdf