Opinion
No. CV-12-02524-PHX-DGC
02-05-2014
Blake Smalley, Plaintiff, v. C Contino, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Defendant Maricopa County has filed a motion for in camera review of documents and a protective order. Doc. 108. The Court will deny the motion.
The Court entered an order on December 12, 2013, finding that the County had failed to meet the burden necessary to assert the deliberative process privilege and ordering it to produce requested executive session minutes. Doc. 95 at 3. The County states in this motion that it has conducted a search of executive session minutes and has found no minutes related to any issues in this case. Doc. 108 at 3. The County asks the Court to review a spreadsheet of its search results, agree with its conclusion, and issue a protective order prohibiting disclosure of the spreadsheet and the minutes. Id.
Rule 26(b)(1) requires the County to produce "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court has ruled that the County cannot rely on the deliberative process privilege with respect to executive session minutes. Thus, if those minutes contain any information within the scope of discovery called for by Rule 26(b)(1) - relevant to any party's claim or defense - and responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the County must produce it. If the minutes do not contain such information, the County need not produce it under Rule 26(b)(1). But it is the County's responsibility, not the Court's, to identify and produce responsive minutes. The Court will not undertake the in camera review suggested by the County.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. 108) is denied. The County will produce any responsive executive session minutes within seven days of this order.
__________
David G. Campbell
United States District Judge