Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
R.R.C., et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION
DENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
LEAD CASE NO. 4:25-CV-525
O R D E R
The 	Court 	previously 	granted 	Petitioners’ 	motion 	for
discovery to the extent that Petitioners may engage in limited and
targeted 	discovery 	on 	their 	claim 	that 	Respondents 	have
systematically 	denied 	Petitioners 	a 	meaningful 	opportunity 	for
release 	on 	bond 	even 	after 	a 	district 	judge 	has 	concluded 	that
each 	Petitioner’s 	detention 	is 	not 	mandatory 	under 	the 	law. 	See
Order 	(Mar. 	16, 	2026), 	ECF 	No. 	28. 	The 	Court 	stated 	that 	if
Respondents claim that a legal privilege exists protecting against
the 	disclosure 	of 	any 	requested 	evidence, 	Respondents 	should
submit a privilege log. 	And if Petitioners object to any privilege
designation, 	Petitioners 	should 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	compel 	stating
the legal grounds for challenging the privilege designation. 	Id.
at 10; accord Text Order (Aug. 14, 2026), ECF No. 43.
Respondents 	object 	to 	producing 	four 	email 	chains 	based 	on
work 	product 	privilege 	and 	the 	deliberative 	process 	privilege.
Case 4:25-cv-00525-CDL-CHW Document 52 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Those 	documents 	have 	Bates 	numbers 	USA_000006, 	USA_0000174,
USA_0000205-USA_0000206, 	USA_0000207-0000208, 	and 	USA_0000303-
0000304. 	Respondents submitted a privilege log showing that these
emails are between immigration judges and leaders of the Department
of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. 	Respondents
represent that the emails are deliberation and/or legal advice on
how 	EOIR 	will 	comply 	with 	certain 	district 	court 	orders.
Respondents submitted the emails for in camera review.
As Petitioners recognize, the deliberative process privilege
protects pre-decisional and deliberative documents from discovery
“to 	allow 	agencies 	to 	freely 	explore 	possibilities, 	engage 	in
internal debates, or play devil’s advocate without fear of public
scrutiny.” 	Moye, 	O'Brien, 	O'Rourke, 	Hogan, 	& 	Pickert 	v. 	Nat'l
R.R. 	Passenger 	Corp., 	376 	F.3d 	1270, 	1277 	(11th 	Cir. 	2004). 	If,
however, “either the Constitution or a statute makes the nature of
governmental 	officials’ 	deliberations 	the 	issue,” 	then 	the
privilege 	does 	not 	apply. 	In 	re 	Subpoena 	Duces 	Tecum 	Served 	on
Off. of Comptroller of Currency, 145 F.3d 1422, 1424 (D.C. Cir.),
on 	reh'g 	in 	part, 	156 	F.3d 	1279 	(D.C. 	Cir. 	1998). 	Even 	when 	the
privilege 	does 	apply, 	it 	can 	be 	overcome 	on 	a 	showing 	of 	good
cause, 	considering 	factors 	that 	include 	the 	relevance 	of 	the
evidence. 	Id.
The 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	the 	disputed 	documents 	that
Respondents submitted for in camera review. 	Based on the Court’s
Case 4:25-cv-00525-CDL-CHW Document 52 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
review, the documents do not relate to Petitioners’ claims in this
case 	and 	are 	not 	probative 	of 	the 	specific 	issues 	raised 	by
Petitioners’ motions to enforce judgment. 	The documents are thus
protected 	by 	the 	deliberative 	process 	privilege, 	and 	good 	cause
does not exist to overcome the privilege. 	Accordingly, the Court
denies Petitioners’ present motion to compel (ECF No. 45).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of October, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00525-CDL-CHW Document 52 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 3