« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Fast & Furious: Why the Failure to Submit a Privilege Log is a Big Deal

There’s going to be a lot written about the Fast and Furious hearing today (See my previous posts here, and Ben Howe has a great post here) debating whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt regarding failure to turn over materials requested by subpoena, but I wanted to make a quick point about a comment Rep. Darrell Issa made about the failure to turn over a privilege log.

In any legal proceeding, if you get a subpoena and want to claim that something is “privileged” (i.e., it’s protected by the attorney client privilege, there are national security concerns, etc.), there is a procedure for responding to the request, to formally assert the privilege and allow the court to decide whether your claim of privilege is legitimate. This applies in criminal cases, civil lawsuits, as well as Congressional subpoenas like the subject of Holder’s hearing today.

One of the key requirements to properly assert a privilege is that you have to complete what’s commonly referred to as a “privilege log” and turn it over to the party who sent you the subpoena.Every state has a set of civil procedure rules that lay out requirements for a privilege log, and the federal rules are similar. I’ll cite the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure because they are the ones with which I’m most familiar:

Rule 1.280(b)(5) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation Materials. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.

In simpler terms, if you want to refuse to turn over documents by claiming they are privileged, you have to submit a list describing those documents. In my previous work as a commercial litigation attorney, I often worked on these privilege logs. Generally, this would involve listing information like “Letter dated March 5, 2003 from ABC, Inc. CEO John Smith to in-house counsel Susie Jones, attorney-client privileged communication” or “Handwritten notes dated April 21, 2004 by in-house counsel Susie Jones in preparation for mediation, attorney work product.”

In other words, if the White House wishes to assert an executive privilege to protect the Department of Justice from turning over the documents, that privilege should have been submitted with a privilege log. Otherwise, there is no way to judge whether the privilege has been legitimately claimed.

If the privilege is disputed, a judge can order an “in camera” review of the contested documents: a secret, closed door inspection by the judge who would protect the secrecy of any documents that are truly privileged, but order the production of any documents that were not.

Of course, if you are just trying to stonewall a Congressional investigation that you fear is going to uncover information very damaging to the re-election hopes of a certain resident of Pennsylvania Avenue, then, well, maybe this is a good strategy!

UPDATE: Oh, the hypocrisy of the Left. They had no problem demanding a privilege log when they wanted documents from George Bush:

From the July 24, 2007 Judiciary Committee Memo objecting to the use of executive privilege regarding communications with Harriet Miers in her former role as White House Counsel:

 …The White House relies on the presidential communications executive privilege, even though the White House has specifically stated that the President did not receive advice on or participate in the U.S. Attorney firings. And the Administration and Ms. Miers have not only refused to produce subpoenaed documents, but have also refused even to provide a log identifying the withheld documents and providing the basic facts necessary to support the claim of privilege, even though such logs are routinely required by the courts in these types of cases.

 

[Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah]

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Resource

  • gregorysstewart

    Where are the Republicans demanding the privilege log ad nauseum?

  • http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com SunshineStateSarah

    …and several others did too.

    So many outrageous actions, so little time to comment. But yeah, they need to be helping explain to the American people why this is part of the problem.

  • kattail

    I’ve contacted my representative asking him to call for it. I’ve also voiced my support for a vote of Contempt. I beleive the elements meeting it are there. If you feel the same you may want to reach out as well.

  • Dave_A

    Which, in the light of Obama ignoring the Congress on the DREAM Act thing…

    Is pretty poetic…

    Bringing us back to ‘the key factor for all manners of our system, is that all 3 branches play nice’… Just like Congress can’t really *force* DHS to enforce Immigration law, Obama can’t *force* Congress to respect his claim of privilege with regard to Holder….

    That’s why I was *initially* skeptical/disapproving of the way Issa & Co were handling F&F – memories of Harriet Miers, AG Gonzolez, and so on, and not wanting EP to be rendered worthless…

    HOWEVER, the absolute disregard for Congress and the Supreme Court shown by Obama since the F&F affair began, has CHANGED MY MIND…

    Congress needs to nail Holder to the wall, simply to re-assert themselves in the face of what Obama has done (especially with this DREAM garbage)…

  • gregorysstewart

    The Dems are saying that this is nothing unusual, and that Clinton did it 14 times, Bush 8.

    If in fact they all produced a privilege log, then this use of Executive privilege is unique. This use of privilege is actually proof of contempt. It would be so general that it could not fit any category but “We don’t feel like it.”

    In fact that seems to be a new category of excuse. The press is floating the real reason for this privilege is because the White House thinks this is a witch hunt. Lost in that accusation is the fact that congress is actually charged with oversight of the Justice Department.

  • http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com SunshineStateSarah

    I’ll update the post with this info…

    It’s at the end of this post:

    http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2012/06/quick-note-on-executive-privilege.html

  • carolina

    (on CNBC)
    I didn’t hear mention of the privilege log in this discussion.

  • The_Rebel

    for this privilege is because Holder and the Justice Department have been lying to Congress for over a year and a half now, and since their stonewalling hasn’t worked, they come up with this 11th hour ploy to get the MSM over to their side now. It is obvious to anyone who has been following this that Obama and Holder are hiding something very damaging in those documents.

    Otherwise, why wouldn’t they have claimed EP when they received the initial request for documents long ago?

  • checkmate2012

    one to ponder the justification for O to invoke the Executive Privilege (EP for me from now on) 20 minutes before the contempt committee hearing. Cover up is my 1st thought too since O provided a blanket EP like you said without basis, likely because he doesn’t know better and believes every word from Holder

    Holders request letter to O for an EP is also a joke and although dated yesterday, it is way too detailed to have been written after the failed 5pm meeting yesterday. All planned in advance starting with Holder not bringing any docs to the 5pm meeting.

    So either O wants this fight to change the focus from the economy or he is covering something up that would damage him politically.

    Thanks for the informative post.

  • checkmate2012

    charge vote in the full House next week. We all should give them support to prop up their backbones so to speak and let them know we would be proud to see them support their Constitutional duty with this vote and standup to this admin and the Terry family if nothing else.

  • gekster

    Main theme, what a hypocryte.

  • checkmate2012

    shortly after Agent Terry’s death in Dec. 2010 & was talking about the last minute EP ploy all day today. The other MSM gave a minute if at all buried in the broadcast like story #4 or 5, with as said above, the witch hunt tag. Shameless.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    because the alternative is worse. Those documents show that the highest levels of the Justice Department (read: Eric Holder) knew and approved of a scheme to run guns for the Mexican Drug Cartels. These guns were used in what is essentially a genocide going on in Mexico. If Issa can prove Holder knew and approved from the beginning, it is pretty much a slam dunk high officials in the Obama Reign (read King Barack, First of His Name) were aware considering the doo doo that running guns for Mexican Drug Cartels was sure to be if you know one of those guns showed up at the killing of an American law enforcement officer. Holder and his majesty aren’t going to risk that so Holder will eat the contempt charge, delay it in court until November 7th which either way, he will receive a pardon for the King.

  • Ausonius

    will any of this matter?

    Precisely WHO will be enforcing the Law against him? Precisely WHO will be demanding the description of the documents? And WHO will be able to determine whether the descriptions are real or not?

    Boehner? Harry Reid? Biden? :)

    Pardon my skepticism, but I suspect this will go nowhere. Do I hope it explodes as a mini-Watergate over the next 4 months? Sure!

    But will our RINO “leaders” really beat the drums daily to pressure MAObama to follow the law?

    Hmmm!

  • The_Rebel

    on which House Republicans vote against the contempt ruling. It will be interesting to hear their reasoning. And that it’s a distraction from the presidential election is not one reason I want to hear.

  • checkmate2012

    up the docs before the full House vote. But that won’t happen now that O claimed EP (executive privilege). Boehner can’t back down now after he let Issa hold the committee hearing.

    We have fireworks ahead my friends!

  • gekster

    But now that it is obvious what has happened, inaction will show much to many.

  • Dave_A

    1) Romney wins the election AND (A) Obama doesn’t blanket-pardon his whole administration, AND (b) the new DoJ doesn’t follow the tradtional ‘forgive and forget’ policy with defeated administrations…

    2) Congress uses ‘Implicit Contempt’ instead of Statutory – in which case Congress themselves can arrest Holder & jail him, but ONLY for the remaining duration of this Congress…. ‘Implicit Contempt’ is similar to the ‘Civil Contempt of Court’ finding whereby a judge can jail you until you obey his order – It’s not a criminal conviction, but rather a method of compulsion….

    However, unlike civil contempt-of-court, Congress cannot hold you indefinitely (Don’t go ‘Eric Holder’ on your local municipal judge – unless you really like the inside of a county jail cell) – they are limited to the duration of the term of that Congress…

    Obama has already asserted Executive Privledge – which means he’s basically giving Congress the bird (AGAIN)…

  • Ausonius

    Type in “Boehner Backs Down” with quotes and you will find about 5,000 hits on Google.

    From 2010:

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/09/boehner_backs_down_says_he_wou.html

    From 2011:

    http://boardreader.com/thread/Boehner_backs_down_on_Planned_Parenthood_ng8e5X4d693.html

    From 2011 on a different challenge:

    http://gothamist.com/2011/07/10/boehner_backs_down_from_deficit_dea.php

  • checkmate2012

    Searching for the Spanish name for pistol, thus Pistola-Gate, I found this tidbit and this time the admin can’t even bring a knife to the fight or claim ignorance! I think Mexico has grounds in a big way.

    From http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html

    Guns are Illegal in Mexico

    Don

  • 1bunny

    http://www.therightscoop.com/bombshell-proof-obama-and-holder-knew-about-gun-walking-in-2009/

  • gekster

    And only 5K hits. That ain’t crap.

    I can only guess Bohner ran over your puppy and didn’t stop to say he was sorry.
    Other than that, you’re just looking for something to bitch about.

  • checkmate2012

    burnt toast if he backs down now. He’s already toast but this would burn him to the point of tossing him in the garbage! No scraping :)

  • Ausonius

    And I do not believe Boehner is on MAObama’s side by any means.

    He is simply a proven coward in such cases.

    And did you see the issues on which he backed down??? Are they “crap” ?

    I will be very happy if events prove me wrong! :)

  • gekster

    Basically he’s saying Bohner is on Obamas side with scant evidence.
    If I do a search, and it doesn’t come up with over a million hits, it can’t be good or relevant.
    And I love puppies, so I would know if Bohner ran over one.
    Now if he ran over an ows type, no loss or big deal. ;)

  • gekster

    You seam to hve a habit of that when it suits you.

  • checkmate2012

    on many issues as we’d like. This is different IMO for many reasons, but shortcut is:

    1. He stalled for a long time but finally limited the scope, put a chain on Issa’s venue, less than 10 days ago, down to 1300 pages of 140K- that is his stamp on this committee vote today.

    2. He may work back channels but unless DOJ releases the docs or gives good reasons for privilege, there is no backing down now.

    Your concerns are valid on many other cases but not this one IMO or else we wouldn’t have gotten this far (finally and I do blame the delays on Boehner).

  • checkmate2012

    wasn’t called F&F in 2009. I looked up Project Gunrunner and 1st hit was this from the DOJ IG: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0906.pdf

    The main points I saw was the IG thought there were problems with the staffing, organizational structure, and lack of Spanish speaking agents! Also a letter from Kenneth Melson, Acting Director, in the Congressional Testimony!

    And thanks to, “In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and in fiscal year (FY) 2009 appropriations, ATF received $21.9 million in funding to support and expand Project Gunrunner. In May 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) opened an evaluation of Project Gunrunner, which is ongoing. We are issuing this interim report on Project Gunrunner plans as ATF is expanding the project.” per the report.

  • gekster

    When aysinious makes a statement, it is true fact, no matter what anyone else says or proves. he is always right.
    Period.
    Just passing on info learned.

  • checkmate2012

    when I don’t know a poster like you do. Youngster here but know who my friends are and he was right on Boehner being soft way too many times…not this one tho.

    Holder and O are going down on this one!!! Exciting day’s ahead!

  • checkmate2012

    were horrifying. They wanted to stall for O and Holder and blame Bush, go figure.

  • gekster

    It was, ‘he’s a liberal dem, can’t do no wrong.

  • checkmate2012

    even the social justice dude on Hannity was disgusted. Seems most hadn’t read or attended all available evidence hearings and blindly followed the loser O.

  • jddrouin

    What are the Federal rules for Privilege Logs???

  • Dave_A

    And while it might sound politically ‘cool’ in this case, if that were possible it would open up a HUGE number of VERY BAD THINGS for the US….

    Europeans charging the US government with violating their laws on capital punishment & war… Iran ‘charging’ the US government with violating their laws on computer hacking (thanks, OPSEC-leaker-idiots)….

    Historically, the only remedy a sovereign government has for official law-breaking – beyond nasty letters, recalling ambassadors, embargoes, and so on – by another sovereign government, is war…

    We’ve played that game already, it didn’t go nicely for MX the last (come to think of it, how many times HAS the US invaded Mexico?)….

  • checkmate2012

    how inane F&F is and how Mexico has Zero tolerance for knives & guns and mostly to show they have no problem separating persons from their families, regardless of circumstances. I kinda like their hardline warnings.

  • checkmate2012

    with a copy to Holder, Acting Inspector General Cynthia A. Schnedar U.S. Department of Justice and Acting Director Kenneth Melson in reference to a whistleblower and inaction:

    http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/Judiciary-03-08-11-OCIE-letter-ask-for-DOJ-IG-to-be-removed-from-ATF-case.pdf

    Yet on 5/3/11 Holder said he just found out about F&F a few weeks ago and recounted his story on 11/8/11 to say he probably should have said a couple of months ago.

    I don’t by a word from Holder or O, given the clip above too.

  • Ausonius

    I am not sure where Mr. Gekster derives his prejudice: feel free to read my previous entries and develop your own opinion.

    I stated above that I hope Boehner proves me wrong: I am willing to let FACTS overturn my pessimistic opinions here.

    The present facts – as I indicated above – is that Boehner caves in many times to the Dems. The proof is in the past.

    I can agree that MAObama might regret this: I just feel that the odds are that again he will get away with it.

  • attyush

    but honestly believe that all of us should spend more time talking about the economy. It is the most important issue and will certainly decide the outcome in November. The fast and furious is a sideshow at best. While it highlights the problems, it won’t really convince American people of the extent of ineptness demonstrated by the current administration.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    One is that politically Fast and Furious is a landmine for the Obama administration. First, the DOJ basically were running guns that were used to kill Mexicans; this will not play well in one of Obama’s key constituencies. Second, investigating the DOJ’s complicitness in the murder of a law enforcement agent is the right thing to do. I’ll agree that Romney would not fight this one but the Congress is absolutely in the right here. Now, if a special prosecutor would be appointed, maybe I’d feel differently. Philosophically, I am not a fan of executive priviledge. I wasn’t when Clinton used it or when Bush used it or now when Obama is using it. The President is an employee of the People who elected him (regardless of Obama’s dream of Kingship) as thus he is responsible to provide to the representatives of the people whatever is required except where doing so would be a national security risk.

  • edintexas

    Pretty much a straight party line vote. There might be a Dem or two who vote for contempt proceedings, and there might be a Repub or so who don’t, but most of the media will be able to cast the vote as nothing but partisanship as usual, with the blame on the Republicans.

    As far as most of the media is concerned, this wasn’t supposed to happen this way. Dear Leader was supposed to be easily on his way to his Billion + dollar war chest, and re-election. There weren’t supposed to be any bumps in the road, unless it was Dear Leader and his Administration running over the Congress, states and citizens. So we can expect the MSM to do their best to cover for Dear Leader and protect their investment.

  • visitingmdliberal

    how “executive privilege” can be invoked if the President himself was not involved, as noted by Judge Napolitano recently. The privilege is designed to protect the ability of the President to exercise some top-level judgment without being hauled into Congress over mere political judgments; if substantiated Fast and Furious is a much bigger, potentially criminal enterprise.

    I guess the rule is: if Ollie North trades weapons for hostages, he’s an oath breaker, but if we trade weapons to Mexican drug gangs, that’s a “judgment call.” And I don’t even like Ollie North..,..