1.Do we have any clues as to what % (other than 48/56=85.7%) of the remaining 11,000-12,000 documents represent the bank examination privilege since that is the subsection of the executive privilege that was disallowed (at least that's my understanding based on your post).
No.
Also IIRC there have been depositions from witnesses that claimed executive privilege, rather than the 5th - presumably (based on your prior post) the mandamus ruling protected those witnesses from having to actually give any information to the courts yes? I don't know what subsection their testimonies would have been wrapped under - process, communications or bank examination - I would assume it would be one of the first 2 rather than the bank examination that the plaintiffs won access to.
Depositions taken during this litigation were not labeled or considered as having executive privilege of one kind or another. All depositions were considered protected information by Judge Sweeney in her amended and second amended protective orders.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
