WPCI }M|;"JbĸԒc!e{jޱi=f&Мk*F,h_[D&X3E&?p h"5c78 *'nde1PȣkV#hr5rF#pUx-d$V "R$Y D#6ƅ$=00{犯l18W,*A-HfۘS-sca^fx]n?S~x?Х}^EIU1{(|#k#`[%uEo_ ,G!RDaIR5XrLgp N d8kSr˚;Jb/%ha: RS֪xL{hʹ':529F:1pïo9k~N߈:QGO? 5Q~+ z9# % 0 D 0()CQ 0 Z ^ w4 m UF7b}Efa 0*s%U ; ;N^@^@^@K`@ ACC 01>FU FoF BFUNFU> G G G G G G^G^G^G^G^G^G^G^G^GIHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($ 9 $  =&&XXdd=    6    _ԀAstotheremainingdocuments,thedistrictcourtfound  seventyonedocumentstobeexemptandorderedanincamerareview  offortydocuments.Noneofthosedocumentsareatissuebefore \ thisCourt,butthedistrictcourtstayedtheincamerareview 2 pendingtheoutcomeofthisinterlocutoryappeal.(d:2$ !    =&&XXdd=    0   u $  =&&XXdd=    9    _ԀFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(b)(3)providesin  pertinentpartthat"apartymayobtaindiscoveryofdocumentsand  tangiblethingsotherwisediscoverable...andpreparedin \ anticipationoflitigationorfortrialbyorforanotherpartyor 2 byorforthatotherparty'srepresentative(includingtheother X party'sattorney,consultant,surety,_indemnitor_,insurer,or . agent)onlyuponashowingthatthepartyseekingdiscoveryhas   substantialneedofthematerialsinthepreparationoftheparty's   caseandthatthepartyisunablewithoutunduehardshiptoobtain `  thesubstantialequivalentofthematerialsbyothermeans.In 6   orderingdiscoveryofsuchmaterialswhentherequiredshowinghas  \  beenmade,thecourtshallprotectagainstdisclosureofthemental  2  impressions,conclusions,opinions,orlegaltheoriesofan   attorneyorotherrepresentativeofapartyconcerningthe    litigation."SDU_16͆,s [,6XL`3|xU<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular- -TABLE A 6&)4Hyperlink              $  =&&XXdd=    7    _ԀThedistrictcourtexercisedsubjectmatterjurisdiction  pursuantto5U.S.C.552(a)(4)(B).ThisCourthasappellate  jurisdictionovertheinterlocutoryorder.Ironsv.FBI,811F.2d \ 681,68384(1stCir.1987)(upholdinginterlocutoryappellate 2 jurisdictionpursuanttoeither28U.S.C.1292(a)(1)or X  collateralorderjurisdictionover_FOIA_Ԁordersdirectingimmediate  disclosure). i $  =&&XXdd=    10    _ԀWebelievethatdocument218maysufficientlysatisfythe  workproductrule.Thisdocument,therefore,isprotectedand  exemptfromdisclosure. x% $  =&&XXdd=    8    _ԀOthercourtsofappealsthathaveadoptedthisstandard  include:NationalUnionFireIns.Co.v.MurraySheetMetalCo.,  Inc.,967F.2d980,984(4thCir.1992);      Simonv.G.D.Searle& \ Co.,      ݀816F.2d397,401(8thCir.1987);SenateofPuertoRicov. 2 _DOJ_,823F.2d574,586n.42(D.C.Cir.1987);_Binks_ԀMfg.Co.v. ^ NationalPrestoIndus.,Inc.,709F.2d1109,111819(7thCir. : 1983);InreGrandJuryProceedings,604F.2d798,803(3dCir.   1979)      5                  .)Ԁ K $  =&&XXdd=    1    _ԀCongressenactedthe_ESA_Ԁtoprotectspeciesdeemedtobe  eitherendangeredorthreatened.The_DOI_ԀandtheDOCjointly  administerthe_ESA_.Endangeredisdefinedas: indangerof \ extinctionthroughoutallorasignificantportionofitsrange. 2 16U.S.C.1532(6).Threatenedisdefinedas: likelytobecome X anendangeredspecieswithintheforeseeablefuturethroughoutall . orasignificantportionofitsrange.Id.1532(20).Species   isdefinedas: anydistinctpopulationsegmentofanyspecies.   Id.1532(16).Althoughthenormallistingproceduresmustcomply `  withtheAdministrativeProceduresAct(APA),theServiceshavethe 6   powertotemporarilybypasstheAPAifan emergencyposinga  \  significantrisktothewellbeingofanyspeciesexists.Id.  2  1533(b)(7). A $  =&&XXdd=    4    _ԀThedisputeswithrespecttodocumentsfromtheDOCandits  divisionhavebeensuccessfullyresolvedinthedistrictcourt.  $  =&&XXdd=    2    _ԀMainealsopleadedacrossclaimagainsttheServices  challengingthelistingofAtlanticsalmon,butstipulatedtoa  dismissalofthecrossclaimwithoutprejudice.Mainethreatened \ tochallengethevalidityofanyfinallistingshoulditevercome 2 topass. | $  =&&XXdd=    3    _ԀInNovember2000,afterpublichearingsandcomments,the  Servicesissuedtheirfinaldecisionthatbecameeffectiveon  December18,2000.Itlistedasendangeredadistinctpopulation \ ofwildAtlanticsalmon.InDecember2000,Mainefiledanaction 2 intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMaine X challengingthevalidityofthefinaldecision.0.Normal.Courier New Regular d(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular&Courier Regular  $  =&&XXdd=    5    _ԀIntwodocuments,the_DOI_Ԁclaimedanexemptionunder5  U.S.C.552(b)(6),theprivacyexemption,towhichthedistrict  courtagreed.Thesedocumentsarenotatissuehere. $  =&&XXdd=    *    _ԀOftheThirdCircuit,sittingbydesignation !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ?     !:XX(!:=Xdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  #(XfrX(#(X(XfrFortheFirstCircuit#(XfrX(dž##XXX(Xfr#   A') ` dE< ` A     No.011234 K  @hh#STATEOFMAINE,  G  @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,   @tt)v. O    @@DDUNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR,UNITEDSTATES K  GEOLOGICALSURVEY,UNITEDSTATESFISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE, ! UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE,ANDNATIONALMARINE  FISHERIESSERVICE, } _@Defendants,Appellants. )y A') ` dE<` A % @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT   @FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE f @ [Hon.GeneCarter,U.S.DistrictJudge] b A') ` dE<` A  @'Before     @@((_Selya_,CircuitJudge, O " _Rosenn_*!8 #  *      ׀and_Cyr_,SeniorCircuitJudges.*! %!u# A') ` dE<"` A "!%       Leonard_Schaitman_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom #' MatthewM._Collette_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,PaulaB. $( _Silsby_,UnitedStatesAttorney,andStuartE._Schiffer_,Acting b% ) AssistantAttorneyGeneral,wereonbriefforappellants. 8&!*   ChristopherC._Taub_,AssistantAttorneyGeneralofMaine,with '^"+ whomPaulStern,DeputyAttorneyGeneralofMaine,andG.Steven '4#, Rowe,AttorneyGeneralofMaine,wereonbriefforappellees. ( $- *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  f*%/f*%   SI*&0 @K@37466@K@SJuly30,2002 +&2  RHCv,'3" @K@37466 @K@ R+!*&4?" +_ 0&d 0AMENDEDOPINION 0&!d" 0(d   (  *,X` XX*8)=)X Xdd8 ` ROSENN,SeniorCircuitJudge. Thisappealraises  recurringquestionsinlitigationwithagenciesoftheUnited   Statesarisingoutofthetensionbetweenthesubstantive :   provisionsoftheFreedomofInformationAct(FOIAortheAct),5  6  U.S.C.552,andtheapplicationoftheattorneyclientandwork   productprivileges.InJanuary2000,theStateofMaine(Maine) >  submittedaseriesofFOIArequeststotheUnitedStatesFishand :  WildlifeService,acomponentoftheDepartmentofInterior(DOI),  andtheNationalMaritimeFisheries,acomponentoftheDepartment B ofCommerce(DOC)(collectivelytheServices)fordocumentsrelating > totheeffortsoftheServicestolistAtlanticsalmonineight  riverswithinMaineundertheprotectionoftheEndangeredSpecies F Act(ESA),16U.S.C.15311544. B  ` TheDOIprovidedMainewithapproximately1400documents  butwithheld308documents,claimingattorneyclientorwork J! productprivileges.MainefiledanactionintheUnitedStates  F# DistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMainetoenjointheServices "% fromimproperlywithholdingthosedocuments.Oncrossmotionsfor N$' summaryjudgments,thedistrictcourtallowedtheDOItowithhold %J!) anumberofdocumentsbutorderedthat197documentsbedisclosed '"+ immediatelytoMaine.Itfoundthemunprotectedbytheattorney R)$- clientorworkproductprivileges.TheDOItimelyappealed. *N&/ Followingourissuanceofanopinioninthiscase,theDOIfileda  petitionforrehearingandMaineresponded.Wewithdrewour \ originalopinionandvacatedthejudgment.Wenowaffirm,reverse, X andvacateinpart.   @tt) I.  \  @%Background  $   ` Toprovideabetterunderstandingoftheissuesraisedon   appealandthelitigiousclimateinwhichMainemadeitsrequests, H  wesetforththebackgroundhistoryofthislitigation. D  ` Thegenesisoftheseproceedingsisthatin1991,the  UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeServicedesignatedAtlanticsalmon L infiveriverswithinMaineas candidatespeciesunderthe H EndangeredSpeciesAct. #  1      ׀In1993,theServicesreceivedpetitions  tolistallAtlanticsalmonthroughouttheUnitedStatesunderthe P ESA.In1995,theServicesdecidedthatnationwidelistingwas L unwarranted.However,theydeterminedthatAtlanticsalmonin   sevenriverswithinMainewerea distinctpopulationsegment,  eligibleforprotectionundertheESAandindangerofextinction. \ TheServices,therefore,proposedtolistthesalmonintheseseven X riversas threatenedundertheESA.    ` Opposedtosuchalisting,MaineproposedtheAtlantic `  SalmonConservationPlanforSevenMaineRivers.InDecember1997,  \  theServices,satisfiedwiththeConservationPlan,withdrewthe   listingproposal.ThecompromiseobligatedMainetoissueannual d  reportswhichweretobemadeavailableforpubliccomment.With `  thewithdrawaloftheproposedlisting,theServicesadvisedMaine   thattheywouldmaintainoversightofthespecies.Theyalso h outlinedcircumstancesunderwhichtheprocessforlistingAtlantic d salmoninMaineriverswouldbereinstated.InJanuary1999,Maine  circulateditsdraft1998annualreport,whichitissuedinApril l 1999asafinalreportaftercommentsfromtheServicesandthe h public.   ` Inthemeantime,inJanuary1999,theDefendersof p  WildlifefiledanactionintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor !l" theDistrictofColumbiachallengingthewithdrawalofthe "$ Services1997listingasviolativeoftheESAandtheAPA.In t$& March1999,Mainemovedtointerveneasdefendant." #  2      ׀TheDefenders  &p!( sought,amongotherrelief,tohavetheServiceslisttheAtlantic  salmonundertheemergencylistingprovisionoftheESA.InAugust \ 1999,TroutUnlimitedfiledasuitraisingsubstantiallythesame X issuesinthesamecourtastheDefenders.Inthemidstofthe   DefendersandTroutlawsuitsandMainesthreatoffuturelegal `  action,theServicesinNovember1999conductedanotherstatus  \  reviewanddecidedtolisttheAtlanticsalmonasbeingindanger   ofextinctionineightriverswithinMaine.# #  3      ׀ d   ` Inresistingtheproposedlisting,Mainemadeaseriesof `  FOIArequeststotheDepartmentsandtheircomponentsseeking   documentspertainingtothedecisiontolisttheAtlanticsalmonin h eightMaineriversasendangered.TheDOIsatisfiedMainesfirst d requestmadeinDecember1999.Mainemadeasecondrequest,which  isthesubjectofthisappeal,onJanuary18,2000,toboth l Departments,DOIandDOC,seekingalldocuments,data,studies,and h correspondencepertainingtotheServicesconsiderationofwhether  tolistAtlanticsalmonineightMainerivers.! #  4      ׀Inresponse,the p  DOIreleasedapproximately1400documents.Itwithheld308 !l" documentsasprotectedfromdisclosureundertheattorneyclient "$ andworkproductprivilegessubsumedbytheFOIAexemption5U.S.C.  552(b)(5)./ #  5      ׀TheDOIassertsthatallwithhelddocumentswere \ generatedbetweenJanuary1999andJanuary2000,aperiodinwhich X theDefendersandTroutlawsuitswerepending.    ` Unsuccessfulinadministrativeappeals,Mainefiledan `  actioninJune2000,intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe  \  DistrictofMaineallegingthattheDOIimproperlywithheld308   documents.Oncrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment,thedistrict d  courtissueditsdecisionandorderonDecember26,2000,as `  amendedonJanuary2,2001.Mainev.DOI,124F.Supp.2d728(D.   Me.2001).ItorderedtheDOIimmediatelytodisclose197 h documentstoMaine,findingthemnotexemptundereitherthe d attorneyclientorworkproductprivileges. #  6      ׀Althoughthedistrict  courtstayedtheimmediatedisclosureorderpendingappeal,theDOI l released84documentsandchallengeddisclosureoftheremaining h 113documents.  #  7        Ї  II.   0 ` Onappeal,theDOIraisestwoprimaryissues.First,as x totheattorneyworkproductprivilege,theDOIclaimsthatthe $t courterredinrequiringawithholdingagencytodemonstratethat   adocumentwasprepared primarilyforlitigationpurposesto |  protectitfromdisclosureundertheFOIA,5U.S.C.552(b)(5). ( x  Second,theDOIarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinrejecting $  theagencysassertionofattorneyclientprivilegefordocuments   containinglegaladviceandanalysisfromagencyattorneysand ,|  draftmaterialswrittenbyagencyofficialsonthegroundthatthe ( documentsdonotrevealconfidentialcommunicationsfromclients.   ` TheFOIArequiresgovernmentagenciesto make... 0 promptlyavailabletoanyperson,uponrequest,whatever records , theagencypossessedunlessthoserecordsfallwithinoneofthe  statutesexemption.5U.S.C.552(a)(3),(b).Evenifsome 4 informationwithinadocumentisexempt,thewithholdingagency 0 muststilldisclosereasonablysegregablenonexemptinformation.   Id.552(b).Severalyearsago,thiscourthadtheoccasionto 8!" reviewthepolicy,purposeandsweepofFOIAinChurchof "4$ ScientologyInternationalv.UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice, $& 30F.3d224(1stCir.1994).Writingforthecourt,JudgeCoffin <&!( notedthatthestatutesbasicpurposeistoopenagencyactionto '8#* thelightofpublicscrutiny.Id.at228.Thepolicyunderlying  thestatute,hewrote, isthusoneofbroaddisclosure,andthe \ governmentmustsupplyanyinformationrequestedbyanindividual X unlessitdeterminesthataspecificexemption,narrowlyconstrued,   applies.Id. `   ` WhenanaggrievedpartyfilesanactionundertheAct  \  becausedocumentsarewithheld,theburdenunderthestatuteison   theagencytodemonstratetheapplicabilityofaclaimedexemption. d  5U.S.C.552(a)(4)(B).Thedistrictcourtmustmakeadenovo `  determinationwhethertheagencyhasmetitsburden.Id.    ` Tofacilitateabroaddisclosureandassisttherequester h and,ifnecessary,areviewingcourt,indeterminingwhetherthe d claimofexemptionisjustified,apracticehasdevelopedforthe  withholdingagencytosupplytherequesterwithaVaughnindex. l TheindextakesitsnamefromVaughnv.Rosen,484F.2d820(D.C. h Cir.1973),andrequiresacorrelationoftheinformationthatan  agencydecidestowithholdwiththeparticularFOIAexemptionand p  theagencysjustificationforwithholding.Maynardv.CIA,986 !l" F.2d547,556(1stCir.1993).Theindexincludes ageneral "$ descriptionofeachdocumentsoughtbytheFOIArequesterand t$& explainstheagencysjustificationfornondisclosureofeach  &p!( individualdocumentorportionofadocument.Churchof '#* ScientologyIntl,30F.3dat228.Thus,theindexcompelsthe x)$, agencytoscrutinizeanymaterialwithheldinjustificationofits $+t&. claimedexemption,assiststhecourtinperformingitsduties,and  givestherequesterasmuchinformationasislegallypermissible. \ Id. X  ` Here,theDOIclaimsthat5U.S.C.552(b)(5),which   exemptsfromdisclosure interagencyorintraagencymemorandums `  orletterswhichwouldnotbeavailablebylawtoapartyother  \  thananagencyinlitigationwiththeagency,shieldsfrom   disclosurethedocumentsatissue.TheSupremeCourthas d  interpretedthatexemptiontoprotectfromdisclosurethose `  documentsthatnormallyareprivilegedfromcivildiscovery.NLRB   v.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,421U.S.132,149(1975);seealsoChurch h ofScientologyIntl,30F.3dat236.Thus,theattorneyclient d andworkproductprivilegesareincludedwithinthescopeofthe  fifthexemptionofFOIA.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,421U.S.at154. l  ` Althoughenactedtoinformthepublicaboutgovernment h agenciesactions,FOIA wasnotdesignedtosupplementtherules  ofcivildiscovery,and[arequesters]righttoobtaininformation p  isneitherenhancednordiminishedbecauseofitsneedsasa !l" litigant.DeeringMilliken,Inc.v.Irving,548F.2d1131,1134 "$ 35(4thCir.1977)(citingSears,Roebuck&Co.,421U.S.at143 t$& n.10).Withtheseprinciplesinmind,weaddresstheissuesbefore  &p!( usandturntotheexemptionsclaimedbytheDOIunderthework '#* productandattorneyclientprivileges. x)$, @* $+t&.    A.  H@ AttorneyWorkProductPrivilege  x   ` Theattorneyworkproductprivilegefirstestablishedin @ Hickmanv.Taylor,329U.S.495(1947),codifiedinFed.R.Civ.P.  < Rule26(b)(3)forcivildiscovery,protectsfromdisclosure   materialspreparedbyattorneys inanticipationoflitigation. D   SinceHickman,courtshavereaffirmedthe strongpublicpolicyon @  whichtheworkproductprivilegeisgrounded.E.g.,UnitedStates   v.Adlman,134F.3d1194,1197(2dCir.1998).Theprivilege H  protectsworkdonebyanattorneyinanticipationof,orduring, D litigationfromdisclosuretotheopposingparty.   ` Thespecificproblemposedbythepartieshereisthe L interpretationofthe inanticipationoflitigationrequirement H inaFOIAcontext.TheDOIsubmitsthatthedistrictcourterred  inholdingthatthedocumentsDOIclaimsareprivilegedas P attorneyworkproductmustnotonlyidentifythelitigationfor L whicheachdocumentwaspreparedbutalsoestablishthatcounsel   preparedthedocumentprimarilyforlitigationpurposes. T!"  ` RelyingontheSupremeCourtsadmonitiontointerpret #P$ FOIAexemptionsnarrowly,thedistrictcourtheldthatthe $& determinativequestionhereiswhethertheprospectoflitigation X&!(  servedastheprimarymotivatingfactorforthepreparationofthe (T#* documents.Maine,124F.Supp.2dat743(citingScottPaperCo. )%, v.CeilcoteCo.,103F.R.D.591,594(D.Me.1984))(emphasis \+&. added).Thecourtreasonedthatwithoutsuchdemonstration,  documentscreatedforadualpurpose,asiscommonwith \ controversialruleproposals, wouldevisceratethepurposesofthe X FOIAbypotentiallyallowinganagencytowithholdanydocument   createdduringadecisiontopromulgateacontroversialrule.Id. `  Todosowoulddonothingtoadvancethecorepurposeofthe  \  attorneyworkproductprivilegewhichistoprotect theadversary   trialprocessitself.Id.Thus,thecourtheldthattosustain d  itsburdenofestablishingtheattorneyworkproductprivilege,the `  DOIsVaughnindexmustidentifythelitigationforwhicheach   documentwaspreparedandestablishthatthedocumentwasprepared h primarilyforlitigationpurposes.Id.at74344. d  ` TheDOIarguesthatthedistrictcourtsrelianceon  ScottPaperCompanyv.CeilcoteCompany,103F.R.D.591,594(D. l Me.1984),adistrictcourtopinion,torequirethatcounselshow h thatthedocumentwasprepared inanticipationoflitigationand  thatlitigationwas theprimaryfactorcontradictsthepurposeof p  Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule26andcourtofappealscases.TheDOI !l" assertsthatnumerouscourtsofappealshaverejectedthedistrict "$ courtsapproachhereandadopteda becauseofstandard.The t$&  becauseofstandardisonethatdetermineswhetheradocumentis  &p!( preparedbecauseofexistingorexpectedlitigation.UnitedStates  v.Adlman,134F.3d1194,1202(2dCir.1998). #  8       \   ` InDOIspetitionforrehearing,itaugmentsand X clarifiesitsviewsastotheapplicationofFTCv.Grolier,Inc.,   462U.S.19(1983)totheissuebeforeusandemphasizesthatthe `  districtcourtinterpretedtherelevantFOIAexemptiontoo  \  narrowly.Thedistrictcourterred,theDOIargues,inholding   thatthedocumentsareprotectedbytheattorneyworkproduct d  privilegeonlyifthe primarymotivatingfactorfortheir `  creationwastoassistinlitigation.DOIstrenuouslyarguesthat   theapplicablelaw,evenintheFOIAcontext,isRule26ofthe h FederalRulesofCivilProcedureR #  9      ׀andcaselawgoverningthe d privilege,particularlyFTCv.Grolier,Inc.andUnitedStatesv.  Adlman. \  ` InGrolier,thequestionwastheextent,ifany,towhich X theworkproductcomponentofExemption5applieswhenthe   litigationforwhichtherequesteddocumentsweregeneratedhad `  beenterminated.Althoughtheissuewasnotidenticaltothe  \  questionbeforeus,theSupremeCourtconcludedthatwhatever   problemsareengenderedinconstruingRule26(b)(3)inthecivil d  discoveryarea,theRule providesasatisfactoryresolutiontothe `  questionofwhetherworkproductdocumentsareexemptunderthe   FOIA.462U.S.at2526.Withoutanyneedtorelyexclusively h uponanyparticularconstructionofRule26(b)(3),theCourtheld d thatthetestunderExemption5 iswhetherthedocumentswouldbe  routinelyornormallydiscloseduponashowingofrelevance. l Id.at26.Thiswashardlyaboltfromtheblue.Severalyears h before,theCourtexplainedinNLRBv.SearsRoebuck&Co.,421  U.S.132,149(1975),thatExemption5 exempt[s]thosedocuments, p  andonlythosedocuments,normallyprivilegedinthecivil !l" discoverycontext. "$  ` Adlmanprovidesthemostexhaustivediscussion,albeitin t$& anonFOIAcontext,ofthestandardadoptedbythedistrictcourt  &p!(  here,aswellastheonetheDOIadvancestothiscourt.Thecourt '#* ofappealsdescribedtheissueandthecompetingstandardsas  follows: \  Itisuniversallyagreedthatadocumentwhosepurposeisto X assistinpreparationforlitigationiswithinthescopeof . theRuleandthuseligibletoreceiveprotectioniftheother   conditionsofprotectionprescribedbytheRulearemet.The   issueislessclear,however,astodocumentswhich,although `  preparedbecauseofexpectedlitigation,areintendedto 6   informabusinessdecisioninfluencedbytheprospectsofthe  \  litigation.Theformulationappliedbysomecourtsin  2  determiningwhetherdocumentsareprotectedbyworkproduct   privilegeiswhethertheyareprepared"primarilyor   exclusivelytoassistinlitigation"aformulationthat d  wouldpotentiallyexcludedocumentscontaininganalysisof :  expectedlitigation,iftheirprimary,ultimate,orexclusive `  %  %hpurposeistoassistinmakingthebusinessdecision.Others 6 askwhetherthedocumentswereprepared"becauseof"existing   orexpectedlitigation"aformulationthatwouldinclude  suchdocuments,despitethefactthattheirpurposeisnotto h "assistin"litigation. > cc134F.3dat119798(emphasisadded). :  ` TheAdlmanCourtreasonedthatthe primarystandardis  atoddswiththetextandthepoliciesofRule26becausenothing B initsuggeststhatdocumentspreparedfordualpurposesof > litigationandbusinessoragencydecisionsdonotfallwithinits  scope.Id.at119899.Thus,thatcourtrejectedthe primary F ! purposestandardasatoddswiththeliteraltermsandpurposeof !B# theRule.Id.Instead,thecourtadoptedtheformulationofthe #% workproductruleenunciatedbyWrightandMiller,8Fed.Practice J% ' &Procedure,2024at343(1994),andadoptedbyanumberof &F") circuits,thatdocumentsshouldbedeemedpreparedforlitigation (#+ andwithinthescopeoftheRuleif, inlightofthenatureofthe N*%- documentandthefactualsituationintheparticularcase,the +J'/ documentcanbefairlysaidtohavebeenpreparedorobtained  becauseoftheprospectoflitigation.Id.1202. \  ` Mainedoesnotdisputethereasoningorpertinenceof X thesecasesinitsanswertothepetitionforrehearing.Rather,   itsubmits,asithasbefore, thattheprecisescopeofthework `  productprivilegeisessentiallyirrelevant.Thisissobecause  \  defendantsfailedtodemonstratethatthedocumentsatissuefall   withineventhebroadscopeoftheprivilegesetforthinthecases d  uponwhichdefendantsrely.Thereisnothingtosuggestthatthe `  documentswerecreatedforanyreasonotherthantoassistthe   defendantsintakingaroutineadministrativeaction!implementing h alistingundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.SeeAnswerofMaine d at12.   ` InlightofthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourt,we l thereforeagreewiththeformulationoftheworkproductrule h adoptedinAdlmanandbyfiveothercourtsofappeals.(Seen.9  supra).Thus,wemustconcludethatintheinstantcaseitwas p  errortorequiretheDOItodemonstratethatthewithhelddocuments !l" werecreatedprimarilyforlitigationpurposesinordertoclaim "$ theworkproductprivilegeunder5U.S.C.552(b). t$&  ` Thisconclusiondoesnotendourinquiry.Maineargues  &p!( thatthe defendantsproducedsolittleinformationregardingthe '#* withhelddocumentsthatthereissimplynowayofdeterminingwhy x)$, aparticulardocumentwasprepared,whatthedocumentdiscusses,or $+t&. whetheritshouldbeprotectedfromdisclosure.SeeAnswerof  Maineat13.TheDOI,ontheotherhand,arguesthatthedistrict \ courtalsoerredinfindingthattheDOIfailedsufficientlyto X identifythelitigationforwhichtheallegedworkproduct   documentswereprepared.Thiscourtpreviouslyhasheld: `  8 ` [A]taminimum,anagencyseekingtowithhold  \  adocument...mustidentifythelitigation  2  forwhichthedocumentwascreated(eitherby   nameorthroughfactualdescription)and   explainwhytheworkproductprivilegeapplies d  toallportionsofthedocument.󀀀: ` x` x wChurchofScientologyIntl,30F.3dat237.Althoughthe 6 identificationandexplanationrequirementsarenottobegivena  hypertechnicalconstruction,theycanneitherbebrushedasidenor > satisfiedbyvaguegeneralities. :  ` TheDOIreliesonthetwodeclarationsofEdwardT.  Keable,theAttorneyAdvisor,OfficeoftheSolicitor,United B StatesDepartmentoftheInterior,thattheDOIsubmittedin > supportofitssummaryjudgmentmotion.Inthefirstdeclaration,  Keableassertsthatthewithhelddocumentsareprivilegedand F ! referstohiswrittenlegalopinionthatwassenttoMaineduring !B# theadministrativeappeal.However,thedeclarationisconclusory #% andnotofmuchhelphere.Intheseconddeclaration,Keable J% ' identifiesthefollowinglawsuitsrelatedtothelistingprocess: &F") (1)DefendersofWildlifev.Babbitt;(2)TroutUnlimitedv. (#+ Babbitt;(3)Mainev.DepartmentofInterior;(4)Mainesthreatto N*%- challengethefinalrule;and(5)MaineAquacultureAssociation +J'/ threatofsuitifpenpermitsaremodifiedtoprotectwildsalmon.  Thedeclarationisperemptory;itoffersnoinformationthatthe \ documentsrequestedwerepreparedforanyoftheselawsuits.In X boththelegalopinionandinthecorrespondingtransmittalletter,   theDOIexplicitlyacknowledgedithasnotidentifiedthe `  litigationtowhichthewithhelddocumentsrelate.Rather,it  \  reasonedthatbecausetherealreadyhavebeenthreelawsuits   directlyrelatedtothelisting, itisreasonableforthe d  attorneysadvisingtheDepartmenttoanticipatemorelitigationat `  variousstagesintheprocess.    ` AnexaminationoftheVaughnindexalsoisnothelpful. h Althoughtheindexidentifiesthedocumentsanddescribesthe d generalsubjectmatterofeach,itfailstodemonstratethatany  particulardocumentwaspreparedforlitigationandfailsto l correlatethedocumentstothelawsuitsreferredtointheKeable h declarations.Themererelationofdocumentstolitigationdoes  notautomaticallyendowthosedocumentswithprivilegedstatus. p  TheburdenwasontheDOItomakethecorrelationbetweeneach !l" withhelddocumentandthe litigationforwhichthedocumentwas "$ created,andthedistrictcourtfoundthattheDOIdidnotmake t$& it.Weseenocompliancewiththiscourtsminimumrequirements  &p!( laidoutinChurchofScientologyInternationalandperceiveno '#*  errorbythedistrictcourtinthisregard. x)$,  ` Theproblemthatnowconfrontsusisthatthedistrict   courtdidnotidentifythedocumentsthatitconsiderednonexempt \ becauseoftheDOIsfailuretosatisfythedistrictcourts X  primarystandardoritsfailuretoidentifythelitigationfor   whichthedocumentswerecreated,orboth.Ourexaminationofthe `  Vaughnindexandthelengthyfootnote18ofthedistrictcourt,124  \  F.Supp.2dat745n.18,leadsustotheconclusion,however,that   themajorityofthedocumentsatissueherewerefoundnonexempt d  bythedistrictcourtbecausetheDOIfailedtoidentifythe `  litigationforwhichthedocumentswerecreated.Asexplained,the   VaughnindexandtheKeabledeclarationsareoflittlehelpin h identifyingthelitigationresponsiblefortheircreation. #  10      ׀The d DOIadmittedasmuchinitslegalopinionandinthecorresponding  transmittalletter. l  ` Astodocuments71,72,80,81,91,92,207,208,234, h and267,theDOIsreferencetotheemergencylistingproposal  couldarguablybedeemedtoidentifythelitigation,mainly,the p  DefendersandTroutlawsuits.Thedistrictcourtstatedthatthe !l" descriptionsoftheemergencylistingproposal,however,were "$  ambiguous...explanationsofthecontentsofthedocumentsand t$& theirpossiblerelevancetolitigation.Weseenoreasonto  &p!( disagree.TheAdlmancourtemphasizedthatthe becauseof '#* standarddoesnotprotectfromdisclosure documentsthatare  preparedintheordinarycourseofbusinessorthatwouldhavebeen \ createdinessentiallysimilarformirrespectiveofthe X litigation.Adlman,134F.3dat1202(citingFed.R.Civ.P.   26(b)(3),AdvisoryCommitteesNote;NationalUnionFireIns.Co. `  v.MurraySheetMetalCo.,967F.2d980,984(4thCir.1992)).  \  Thisistrueevenifthedocumentsaidinthepreparationof   litigation.Id. d   ` OnfurtherreviewoftheVaughnindex,weconcludethat `  thereferencestotheemergencylistingprocessareinsufficient   descriptionstodeterminewhetherthedocumentswerecreated h becauseoftheDefendersandTroutlawsuits,orwere preparedin d theordinarycourseofbusinessor...wouldhavebeencreatedin  essentiallysimilarformirrespectiveofthelitigation.Thus, l althoughweconcludethatthedistrictcourterredinholdingthat h the primarystandardistheapplicabletest,underthe  circumstances,itsresolutionofthedocumentstobereleased p  remainsunaffected.    !l"  ` Finally,theDOIarguesthatthedistrictcourterredin "$ concludingthatFOIAdoesnotexemptfromdisclosurefactual t$& materialinanotherwiseprivilegedattorneysworkproduct.  &p!(   Maine,124F.Supp.2dat74445.Mainemootstheissueby '#* withdrawingitsrequestforthosenineteendocumentsstillon x)$, appealthatthedistrictcourtordereddisclosedbasedonthis $+t&. legalholding.Atoralargument,counselforMainealsoadvised  thecourtthatitwillmakeasimilarwithdrawalwithrespectto \ thedocumentssubjecttoincamerareview.Therefore,wewill X vacatethatportionofthedistrictcourtsorderthatheldthat   FOIAexemption5doesnotencompassfactualcomponentsofa `  privilegedattorneyworkproduct.MedicalProflMut.Ins.Co.v.  \  BreonLab.,Inc.,141F.3d372,376(1stCir.1998)( Ifajudgment   isrenderedmootduringanappeal,eitherthroughhappenstanceor d  unilateralactionbytheprevailingparty,normallythecourt `  dismissestheappealandordersthejudgmentvacated.)(citing   UnitedStatesBancorpMortgageCo.v.BonnerMallPship,513U.S. h 18,25(1994)). d @tt) B.  @AttorneyClientPrivilege    ` Wenowconsidertheattorneyclientprivilege.TheDOI P contendsthatthecourteithermisunderstoodthescopeofthe L attorneyclientprivilegeorapplieditverynarrowlyinfinding81   ofthestillremaining94documentsonappealunprotectedbythe T!" attorneyclientprivilege.Thisprivilegeprotectsconfidential #P$ communicationsmadebyaclienttohisattorney.InreGrandJury $& Subpoena,274F.3d563,571(1stCir.2001).Theattorneyclient X&!( privilege istheoldestoftheprivilegesforconfidential (T#* communicationsrecognizedbylaw.WeinsteinsFederalEvidence, )%, 503.03(2dEd.).Themodernrationalefortheprivilegeismore \+&. practicalandexpansive,promotingfulldisclosurebyclientsto  theirattorneys; itenablesattorneystoactmoreeffectively, \ justly,andexpeditiously.Id.Theprivilegealsoprotectsfrom X disclosuredocumentsprovidedbyanattorneyifthepartyasserting   theprivilegeshows: `  (1)thathewasorsoughttobeaclientof[theattorney];  \  (2)that[theattorney]inconnectionwiththe[document]  2  actedasalawyer;(3)thatthe[document]relatestofacts   communicatedforthepurposeofsecuringalegalopinion,   legalservicesorassistanceinlegalproceedings;and(4) d  thattheprivilegehasnotbeenwaived. :  FTUnitedStatesv.BayStateAmbulanceandHosp.RentalServ.,Inc., 6 874F.2d20,2728(1stCir.1989)(quotingUnitedStatesv.  Wilson,798F.2d509,512(1stCir.1986)). >  ` TheDOIhereassertsthatthecourtheldcertain : documentsunprotectedbytheprivilegebecausetheydidnotreveal  aconfidentialcommunication.This,itsubmits,iscontraryto B TownofNorfolkv.UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers,968F.2d > 1438,145758(1stCir.1992),whichholdsthatanattorneys  advicetoaclientisprotectedifitrelatestoaconfidential F ! communication.TheDOI,however,mischaracterizesthedistrict !B# courtruling.ThedistrictcourtheldthattheDOIfailedto #% demonstrateaconfidentialfactualcommunicationand also[failed] J% ' toexplainhowthewithheldlegalanalysiswouldrevealanysuch &F") factifitexisted.Maine,124F.Supp.2dat742. (#+  ` Further,relyingonTownofNorfolk,theDOIarguesthat N*%- thecourtserroneousviewofthescopeoftheprivilegeledthe +J'/ courttorejecttheprivilegefordocumentsattheheartofthe  exchangeofinformationandadvicebetweentheattorneyandhis \ client.Itpointstotheattorneysadvice,theagencysproposed X actions,commentonandanalysisofthelawyersdraftpleading,   theopposingpartyspleadings,anddiscussionsofstrategybetween `  thelawyerandtheclient.  \   ` TheDOIsargumentsaremisplaced.InTownofNorfolk,   thecourtmadeafinding,absenthere,that bythecontentofthe d  letters,itisclearthattheyrelatetofactscommunicatedforthe `  purposeofsecuringalegalopinion,legalservicesorassistance   inalegalproceeding.968F.2dat1458(internalquotationmarks h andcitationomitted).Here,theDOIhasfailedtoexplain,or d evenattempttoexplainexceptinconclusorystatements,howthe  documentsclaimedtobeprotectedestablishthattheyrelatetoa l confidentialclientcommunication.Itfurtherassertsthatthe h districtcourterredinrequiringtheDOItoshowdefinitivelythat  eachdocumentrevealsthesubstanceofaconfidentialfact p  communicatedbytheclient.Aswealreadynoted,thecourts !l" conclusionofinapplicabilityoftheattorneyclientprivilegewas "$ premisedonitsdeterminationthattheDOIfailedtoestablishthe t$& requisiteelementofaclientcommunicatedconfidentialfact.  &p!(  ` TheDOIerroneouslyassumesthattherequirementof '#* clientcommunicatedconfidentialityissatisfiedmerelybecausethe x)$, documentsarecommunicationsbetweenaclientandattorney.The $+t&. errorinthisassumptioncanbefoundbyreferringtoMeadData  Central,Inc.,566F.2dat253,wherethecourtheldthatthe \ attorneyclientprivilege doesnotallowthewithholdingof X documentssimplybecausetheyaretheproductofanattorneyclient   relationship....Itmustalsobedemonstratedthatthe `  informationisconfidential.(emphasisadded)(footnoteomitted).  \   ` Likethedistrictcourthere,theCourtofAppealsfor   theDistrictofColumbiaCircuitinMeadfoundcertaindocuments d  unprotectedbytheattorneyclientprivilegebecausethe `  withholdingagencyfailedtodemonstratetheconfidentialityofthe   informationonwhichtheyarebased.Thecourtfoundthatthe h withholdingpartysimplyfailedtodemonstratethatthewithheld d documentscontainorrelatetoinformationthattheclientintended  tokeepconfidentialanditthusfailedtoestablishanessential l elementoftheprivilege.566F.2dat25354. h  ` WeneednotdiscusseachdocumentforwhichtheDOI  claimstheattorneyclientprivilegebecausetheyallsufferfrom p  thesameinfirmity.TheVaughnindexstatesthenamesofthe !l" individualorindividualspreparingeachdocumentwithheld,the "$ recipient,theclaimedprivilege,ageneraldescriptionofthe t$& document,andthedate.Astrongexampleoftheindexinsupport  &p!( oftheattorneyclientprivilegeisentrynumber112: '#* 8 ` 14pagedraftstatementmaterialsfactsfrom x)$, anagencyofficialtotheDOJlawyer N*%-  representingtheServicesintheDefendersof $+t&. Wildlifecaseinordertoassistthelawyerin  preparingpleadingsinthecase.` x` x   ` InChurchofScientologyInternational,thiscourt X rejectedindexentriesasinsufficient becausetheyfailto   specifywhetherthesourcewasprovidedanexpressorimpliedgrant `  ofconfidentiality,ordonotprovidesufficientdetailaboutthe  \  surroundingcircumstancestosupportanexpressionofimplied   confidentiality.30F.3dat238.Theaboveentry,likethe d  others,includingthoseclaimedunderworkproductprivilege, `  exceptone,isverygeneral,withoutanyexplanationjustifyingthe   privilege,andfailstoidentifyanycircumstanceexpresslyor h inferentiallysupportingconfidentiality. d  ` WethereforeconcludethatJudgeCarter,inhisanalysis  oftheindexandsupportingaffidavits,committednoerror. l @tt) C. h   SummaryJudgment  0  ` Lastly,theDOIarguesthatthecourtactedprematurely   ingrantingsummaryjudgment.RelyingonChurchofScientology T!" International,30F.3dat23940,JudgeCarterstated: #P$ 8 ` Whenanagencyhasfailedtoprovide $& sufficientdetailinitsVaughnindexand/or % ' affidavitsinsupportofitsclaimof X&!( exemptionandnonsegregability,adistrict .'~") courtmayrequiresupplementationofthe (T#* Vaughnindex,conductanincamerareviewof (*$+ thedocumentsinquestion,authorizelimited )%, discovery,ororderimmediatedisclosureof *%- thedocuments.\+&.` x` x  2,'/ Maine,124F.Supp.2dat737.ThejudgeconcludedthatDOImet  itsburdenofestablishingtheprivilegedclaimforsomeofthe \ documents.Formany,heconcludedthattheDOIfailedtosupply X sufficientinformationtomeetitsburdenofestablishingthe   claimedprivilege.Id.at738. `   ` TheDOIcontendsthatthecourterredoncrossmotions  \  forsummaryjudgmentingrantingimmediatedisclosurebasedonan   inadequateVaughnindexinsteadofprovidingtheDOIwithan d  opportunitytosubmitadditionalaffidavitsandtoreviseits `  Vaughnindex.Itarguesthatattheveryleastthereexistgenuine   issuesofmaterialfacttoprecludegrantingofsummaryjudgment h andorderingimmediatedisclosure. d  ` AsMainepointsout,theDOIalsorequestedthatthis  caseproceedtodispositiononitsmotionforsummaryjudgment. l Further,theDOIhasunilateralanduninhibitedaccesstothe h contentofthewithhelddocuments.InChurchofScientology  International,thiscourtremandedthecaseandinstructedthe p  partiesthatafterthegovernmenthasprovidedadditional !l" information,thedistrictcourtcouldchoosetopermitdiscovery "$ limitedtospecifieddocuments,conductincamerareviewof t$& selecteddocuments,orderreleaseofsomedocuments,ora  &p!( combinationoftheseprocedures.30F.3dat23940.Thisisthe '#* coursethatthecourtfollowedhere.Itconductedacomprehensive x)$, andpainstakingreviewofthedocumentsandtheVaughnindexto $+t&. arriveatitsdecision.Itorderedimmediatedisclosureforsome  documentswheretheDOIfailedtosatisfythelegalprerequisites \ oftheclaimedprivilege. X  ` AlthoughinIronsv.Bellwecautionedagainstordering   immediatedisclosureofdocumentsbasedonanagencysadmittedly `  flawedaffidavit,especiallywherethesupportingaffidavit  \  involvesanovelquestionoflaw,596F.2d468,471n.6(1stCir.   1979),weperceivenoerrorbythiscourt.TheCourtofAppeals d  fortheThirdCircuitsimilarlyfrowneduponimmediatedisclosure `  inCoastalStatesGasCorporationv.DepartmentofEnergy,but   notedthatitinnowayencouragedagencydelay.644F.2d969,979 h (3dCir.1981)(CoastalII).Itwouldinthefuturefollowthe d suggestionofthecourtinCoastalStatesGasCorporationv.  DepartmentofEnergy,617F.2d854(D.C.Cir.1980)(CoastalI), l requiringagenciestosupplysufficientinformationthefirsttime h soastoallowcourtstomakeareasoneddeterminationpertaining  tothelegitimacyoftheclaimedexemptions.CoastalII,644F.2d p  at981.Ofspecialpertinencehere,theCoastalIIcourtalso !l" concludedthattosurvivesummaryjudgment,itwouldnotbe "$ unreasonabletorequireanagencytostandonitsfirstVaughn t$& index.Id.at984.  &p!(  ` Intheinstantcase,theDOIopposedthediscoveryof '#* thesedocumentsandneverrequestedahearingororalargument.It x)$, stoodonitsmotionforsummaryjudgment.TheDOIneversubmitted $+t&. asupplementalorrevisedindexjustifyingthewithholdingofthe  documentsundertheclaimedprivilege.Thedistrictcourtadhered \ tothecommonstandardsummaryjudgmentprocedureand,underthe X circumstances,didnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingtheagency    asecondchance. `  N.` hp x (#,X` XN  @( III.   @%Conclusion      Insum,asMainehaswithdrawnitsrequestfordocuments H  relatedtothedistrictcourtsholdingthatfactualmaterialsin D aprivilegedattorneyworkproductarenotexemptfromdisclosure,  wewillvacatethatpartofthedistrictcourtsorder.The L districtcourtsstandardthatadocumentmaynotbeexemptunder H theattorneyworkproductprivilegeunlesstheprospectof  litigation servedastheprimarymotivatingfactormustbe P rejected.Underthecircumstancesalreadyexplained,theerroris L harmlesshere.Forthereasonssetforthabove,thedistrict   courtsrulingsontheattorneyclientprivilegeareaffirmed.The T!" ordergrantingMainesmotionforsummaryjudgmentanddirecting #P$ thedisclosureofthe94withhelddocumentsisaffirmedexceptas $& todocument218. X&!(  Affirmed,reversed,andvacatedinpart. Allpartiesshallbear (T#* theirowncosts.