CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

National Council of La Raza v. Department of Justice

Plaintiff advocacy organizations brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce records concerning the authority of state and local police to enforce immigration laws. The DOJ asserted that the documents were protected by Exemption 5, citing deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. The court found that most withheld documents were covered by the deliberative process privilege. However, it ruled that the DOJ waived its privilege for the April 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum (Document 28) because the Attorney General and his representatives repeatedly invoked it publicly to justify their policy. Consequently, the court partially granted and partially denied the DOJ's motion for summary judgment, ordering the production of Document 28 and requiring in camera inspection for documents 23-25.

FOIA LitigationDeliberative Process Privilege WaiverGovernment TransparencyImmigration Law Enforcement AuthorityDepartment of Justice PolicyOffice of Legal Counsel OpinionsSummary Judgment RulingInter-agency CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument Disclosure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty

Plaintiff Allocco Recycling, Ltd. subpoenaed non-party Urbitran Associates, Inc. for documents prepared for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Defendant John Doherty, Commissioner of DSNY, moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, claiming the documents were irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, and protected by deliberative process privilege. Allocco cross-moved to compel production. This memorandum decision specifically addresses the deliberative process privilege claim, finding that the documents, which involve data collection and analysis by a government consultant, are purely factual and do not constitute advisory opinions or policy deliberations. Therefore, the court ruled that the documents are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process PrivilegeSubpoenaMotion to QuashProtective OrderMotion to CompelDiscoveryGovernment DocumentsFactual InformationAgency PolicyGovernment Consultant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2006

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NRDC sought documents concerning the environmental impacts of military sonar and a mass stranding of whales in North Carolina. The defendants invoked the deliberative process privilege for certain withheld documents, specifically the 'April Document' and 'April Email.' The Court conducted an in camera review of the documents. The Court determined that much of the withheld material in the April Document consisted of purely factual information, primarily necropsy observations, which are not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, compelling the defendants to disclose the factual information.

FOIADeliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentMarine Mammal Protection ActWhale StrandingGovernment TransparencyInformation DisclosureAdministrative LawFederal CourtAnimal Protection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
References
7
Case No. 03 Civ.2559 LAK
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2004

National Council of La Raza v. DEPARTMENT OF JUST.

Plaintiff advocacy organizations brought an action against the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the production of records concerning the authority of state and local police to enforce immigration laws. The Department withheld documents, asserting the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5. The Court found that while most withheld documents qualified for the privilege, the Department had waived it for a key April 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum by publicly incorporating its conclusions into agency policy. Consequently, the court partially granted and partially denied the Department's motion for summary judgment, ordering in camera review for some documents and directing the production of the April 2002 OLC memorandum to the plaintiffs.

FOIADeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWaiverSummary JudgmentImmigration LawState AuthorityFederal PreemptionOLC OpinionDepartment of Justice
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2014

Burbar v. Incorporated Village of Garden City

Plaintiff Jacob Burbar filed a motion to compel discovery against the County of Nassau and the Nassau County District Attorney's office in a case alleging wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The defendants invoked deliberative process and work product privileges to withhold certain documents. United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson conducted an *in camera* review. The Court determined that the deliberative process privilege was inapplicable because the defendants' intent and decision-making process were central to the plaintiff's claims. Regarding the work product privilege, the Court ordered disclosure of fact work product while protecting opinion work product. Consequently, the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, with specific instructions for document production.

DiscoveryPrivilegeDeliberative ProcessWork ProductMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessCivil RightsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)In Camera ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolin, Thomas & Solomon LLP v. United States Department of Labor

The law firm Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the United States Department of Labor (DOL) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging wrongful withholding of documents. These documents pertained to DOL Wage and Hour Division Opinion Letters FLSA 2007-1, FLSA 2007-2, and FLSA 2007-4, along with related requests and internal communications. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court partially granted and partially denied both motions, ordering the DOL to produce specific categories of documents, such as enclosure letters, status updates, and generalized procedural communications, for which privilege claims were deemed insufficient. However, the court upheld the DOL's right to withhold draft opinion letters and communications containing specific legal advice, recognizing these as protected by deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

FOIAFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentDeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument DisclosureAgency RecordsDOL Opinion LettersGovernment TransparencyExemptions
References
21
Case No. ADJ7247116 ADJ7241415 ADJ7407598 ADJ9052220 ADJ9432209
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

DOROTHY TRISTAN vs. CITY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal regarding a discovery order. The employer argued that releasing documents related to a prior DFEH/EEOC discrimination claim and allowing a continued deposition would cause irreparable harm due to privilege concerns. The Board found the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, emphasizing that privilege objections can still be raised for specific documents. The Board also noted the prolonged discovery dispute and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying workers' compensation claims.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionDocument ProductionPrivileged RecordsDFEHEEOCLabor Code Section 132aDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Dow Chemical Co.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from defendants Dow and PPG regarding documents related to ongoing research studies on the harmful effects of vinyl chloride, which her deceased husband William Smith was allegedly exposed to. Defendants countered with a motion for a protective order, citing a qualified researcher's/scholar's privilege and arguing that the incomplete studies were irrelevant and inadmissible under Daubert standards. The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel, finding that defendants failed to provide sufficient information to establish a privilege claim and that arguments concerning the admissibility of incomplete studies were premature. The court also denied defendants' motion for a protective order, instructing defendants to produce the requested documents.

DiscoveryResearcher's PrivilegeScholar's PrivilegeMotion to CompelProtective OrderVinyl Chloride ExposureScientific StudiesExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,152 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational