Followers | 293 |
Posts | 4644 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 10/12/2008 |
Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:24:49 PM
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
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM
Avant Technologies to Implement AI-Empowered, Zero Trust Architecture in Its Data Centers • AVAI • Apr 29, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Reports an Over 50 Percent Increase in Sales and Profits in Q1 2024 from Q1 2023 • BANT • Apr 25, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix's Breath Logix Alcohol Device Delivers Positive Impact to Private Monitoring Agency in Montana, USA • BLO • Apr 25, 2024 8:52 AM