In Wilmington Trust, the court found that any privileged information in the bank examination reports was “highly relevant” to the Exchange Act claims alleged because it was “indicative of Defendants' knowledge of the Bank's problems, the alleged misrepresentations and breach of fiduciary duty, and scienter,” and relevant to defenses to the claims. See Wilmington Trust, 2016 WL 9753979 at *7; In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 151 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1992) (concluding that the bank examination reports were “highly relevant” to plaintiff's claims that the bank made false and misleading statements); Principe, 149 F.R.D. at 449 (finding bank examination reports relevant to proof of defendants' knowledge, misrepresentations, and scienter); Walsh v. Chittenden Corp., 799 F.Supp. 405, 408 (D. Vt. 1992) (finding it “undisputed” that the requested reports are relevant to securities fraud claims, particularly the element of scienter); Forstmann Leff Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Brands, Inc., No. 88-cv-4485, 1991 WL 168002, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 1991) (finding requested reports relevant to justifiable reliance element of securities fraud claims); Seafirst, 644 F.Supp. at 1162 (finding bank examination reports relevant to allegations of “imprudent” loans issued by bank to “high-risk” borrowers).
More important, we did not discover in this document any "secrets" of government employees. Finally, it is Fed's "burden to establish the existence and applicability of the privilege," Walsh v. Chittenden, 799 F.Supp. 405, 407 (D.Vt.1992). We were not shown and did not find the " 'precise and certain reasons for preserving the confidentiality of the governmental communication,' necessary both to overcome the plaintiff's patent need to examine the records and to dispel the court's reluctance to interfere with the truth-seeking process."
More important, we did not discover in this document any "secrets" of government employees. Finally, it is Fed's "burden to establish the existence and applicability of the privilege," Walsh v. Chittenden, 799 F. Supp. 405, 407 (D.Vt. 1992). We were not shown and did not find the "`precise and certain reasons for preserving the confidentiality of the governmental communication,' necessary both to overcome the plaintiff's patent need to examine the records and to dispel the court's reluctance to interfere with the truth-seeking process."