Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vietnam Veterans of America, et al., et al v. Central Intelligence Agency

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 31, 2012

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, ET AL., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JULY 19, 2012 ORDER (Dkt. No. 472)

Now pending before the Court is Defendant Department of Veterans Affairs' ("DVA") response to the Court's July 19, 2012 Order (Dkt. No. 469) regarding the Court's 22 in camera review of documents over which Defendant asserted the deliberative process 23 privilege. (Dkt. No. 472). 24

The Court has reviewed the Mustard Gas Action Plan submitted with Defendant's 25 response (Dkt. No. 472-1). Based on the Court's review of this document, the Court amends 26 its prior Order to strike the requirement that Defendant produce the following document: 27

DVA097 0260-0273. The Court sustains the deliberative process privilege assertion with 28 respect to this document as Plaintiffs have the final version of the mustard gas white paper, i.e., the Mustard Gas Action Plan. However, the Court upholds its prior finding that Defendant shall produce DVA097 0357-0368, DVA097 0404-0410, DVA097 0426-0428 and DVA097 0411-0412. These documents are largely factual in nature and to the extent that they can be said to be deliberative the Court finds that their subject matter overlaps with, but is not subsumed within the Mustard Gas Action Plan, such that Plaintiffs have a substantial need for the information therein sufficient to overcome the qualified deliberative process privilege.

With respect to those matters regarding which Defendant seeks clarification, the Court 9 responds as follows. The Court's Order inadvertently indicated that Defendant should 10 produce DVA090 0472-0475 rather than DVA097 0472-0475. Similarly, the Court's Order 11 referred to DVA090 0369-0379; this was a typographical error and should have read 12 DVA090 0369-0370. Defendant shall produce DVA097 0472-0475 and DVA090 0369- 0370.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 472.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120731

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.