Deliberative-Process Privilege Protects Agency’s Unapproved Meeting Minutes Reply

A N.J. appellate court issued an interesting opinion for governmental entities responding to public-records requests.  The question was whether a public-records act requires a governmental agency to produce its draft, unapproved meeting minutes.  The N.J. court held that draft minutes are pre-decisional and deliberative, protected by the deliberative-process privilege, and not subject to a public-records request.  Libertarians for Transparent Gov’t v. Gov’t Records Council, 180 A.3d 327 (N.J. Super. 2018).  You may read the decision here.

Deliberative-Process Privilege

The deliberative-process privilege, a sub-category of the global executive privilege, protects from disclosure documents and information reflecting a governmental agency’s deliberations prior to a final decision.  The privilege encourages agency employees to engage in open debate about government policy by precluding their pre-decision comments from public disclosure.  It therefore protects advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations.

To invoke the privilege, the governmental agency must show that the requested document is (1) pre-decisional, meaning the agency created it before adopting the corresponding policy or decision; and (2) deliberative, meaning that it contains opinions, recommendations, or advice.

Government Records Council

New Jersey’s Government Records Council, which, ironically, “is committed to making the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) work for the citizens of New Jersey,” and has “worked hard to make government records more easily accessible to the public,” held its monthly meeting on February 23, 2016.  The GRC took minutes and was ready to approve them at the March 2016 meeting, but the GRC cancelled that meeting for lack of a quorum. More…

Legal Analysis v. Conclusion: A Dividing Line for the Deliberative-Process Privilege

The First Circuit joined the Second and D.C. Circuits in ruling that the deliberative-process privilege protects legal counsel’s conclusions and opinions in situations where the governmental agency based a particular decision on counsel’s opinion rather than her reasoning or analysis behind the opinion.  Governmental agencies at the federal, state, and local levels will likely use this reasoning/opinion dividing line in responding to FOIA or state public-records requests.  New Hampshire Right to Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 2015 WL 467525 (CTA1 Feb. 4, 2015).  You may read the decision here.

New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL) submitted a FOIA request to and later filed suit against HHS seeking documents related to HHS’s grant award to Planned Parenthood of Northern New Englancrossinglined.  HHS withheld documents containing Office of General Counsel’s advice to HHS that it could legally issue the grant to Planned Parenthood.

FOIA’s Exemption 5 shields documents from disclosure that are normally non-discoverable in civil litigation, including documents protected by the deliberative-process privilege and the attorney–client privilege.  The deliberative-process privilege protects communications that are predecisional and deliberative.

NHRTL argued, however, that HHS waived the privilege because it adopted the OGC’s advice—that HHS could legally issue the grant—as “policy of the Agency.”  While it is true that an agency adoption of predecisional opinions as policy obviates the privilege, the court created a demarcation line between adoption of legal opinions and adoption of the reasoning and analysis behind those opinions.

The court said that it makes “no sense” to adopt a “categorical rule” that “every time an agency acts in accord with counsel’s view it necessarily adopts counsel’s view as ‘policy of the Agency.’”  This is especially true where counsel’s advice is simply that the agency has no legal barrier preventing it from making a particular position.

The court followed cases in the Second and D.C. Circuits in ruling that Exemption 5 does not protect legal opinions from disclosure only when the agency actually adopts the reasoning behind counsel’s opinions.  In other words, an agency’s reliance on a document’s conclusions in rendering a decision does not necessarily mean the agency relied on the document’s analysis.  It is only the agency’s adoption of counsel’s reasoning that destroys the privilege.

The court highlighted the instrumental reasoning behind the deliberative-process privilege by recognizing the chilling effect on agencies seeking counsel’s advice for any broader rule:

It is a good thing that Government officials on appropriate occasion confirm with legal counsel that what the officials wish to do is legal.  To hold that the Government must turn over its communications with counsel whenever it acts in this manner could well reduce the likelihood that advice will be sought.

The moral of the story is that, to keep the privilege, government agencies should carefully rely upon its counsel’s conclusions in their decision-making process and avoid expressly adopting counsel’s reasoning or analysis.  For other cases, see National Council of La Raza v. Dep’t of Justice, 411 F.3d 350 (CTA2 2005) and Electr. Frontier Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 739 F3d 1 (CTADC 2014).