throbber
Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB
`
`
`Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition
`to Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of 2012 and 2014 FTC
`Memoranda
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`A.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`I.
`Recommendation Packages Relating to the 2012 Instagram Acquisition .......................... 3
`May 2012 Recommendation Package to the Commission Regarding Compulsory
`Process (Entries 1a Through 1e) ................................................................................... 3
`August 2012 Recommendation Package to the Commission Regarding Closing
`the Investigation (Entries 2a, 2b, and 2e) ..................................................................... 4
`Notes Relating to the FTC’s 2014 WhatsApp Review (Entries 3 and 4) ........................... 5
`II.
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6
`The Deliberative Process Privilege Protects from Discovery FTC Recommendation
`I.
`Memoranda (Entries 1a-e, 2a, 2b, and 2e) and Attorneys’ Notes (Entries 3 and 4) ........... 6
`The Deliberative Process Privilege Applies Because the Recommendation
`Memoranda and Attorney Notes Are Predecisional and Deliberative .......................... 6
`FTC Regulations Provide for a Twenty-Five-Year Application of the Deliberative
`Process Privilege, Not Ten Years as Meta Argues ....................................................... 8
`Any Factual Material in the Documents Is “Inextricably Interwoven” with Staff’s
`Analysis and Recommendations ................................................................................... 8
`The Court Should Reject Meta’s Ipse Dixit Claim that the FTC’s 2012 and 2014
`“Decision-making Process Is Directly at Issue” ......................................................... 10
`Meta’s Argument that the FTC Has Waived the Deliberative Process Privilege by
`Initiating a Lawsuit Is Contrary to Binding Precedent ............................................... 12
`The Documents at Issue Are Protected Work Product ..................................................... 13
`Meta Does Not Contest the FTC’s Work Product Claim Regarding Entries
`1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 ...................................................................................... 13
`Entries 1d and 2e Are Protected Work Product Prepared by BE Economists ............ 14
`The Documents Are “Virtually Undiscoverable” Opinion Work Product ................. 15
`The FTC Did Not Waive its Privileges by Providing the Documents to Congress .......... 17
`The FTC Responded to an Official Request from Congress, Consistent with
`Long-Standing Policy ................................................................................................. 17
`The FTC Did Not Waive Privileges by Providing Information to Congress .............. 18
`The Court Should Reject Meta’s Alternative Argument That It Has Overcome the
`Deliberative Process Privilege and Work Product Protection .......................................... 21
`Meta Exaggerates the Factual Information in the Recommendation Memorandum
`and Notes at Issue, and Ignores the Information It Already Has ................................ 21
`The FTC Did Not Collect Any Documents in Its 2014 WhatsApp Review,
`
`B.
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`2.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`and Sought to Interview Only Sixteen Third Parties that Are Equally Available to
`Meta ...................................................................................................................... 22
`The FTC Has Already Produced to Meta All of the Documents in Its
`Possession Collected in the 2012 Instagram Investigation, and Meta Has
`Equal or Superior Access to All Witnesses .......................................................... 23
`Meta Inaccurately Claims that Staff’s Statements Are FTC’s “Admissions” ............ 24
`Meta’s Concession that It Seeks “Admissions” Proves that Its Motion Should Be
`Denied to Avoid Chilling Candid Communication Among FTC Staff ...................... 25
`Meta’s Assertion that the FTC’s 2012 and 2014 Investigations May Be
`“Dispositive” Misstates Antitrust Principles, and Ignores the Investigations’
`Limited Scope ............................................................................................................. 26
`Meta’s Complaints About “Unfairness” Do Not Establish an Extraordinary
`Need for the FTC’s Privileged Documents ................................................................. 28
`Attorney-Client and Investigatory File Privileges Also Apply......................................... 29
`V.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`A. Michael’s Piano, Inc. v. FTC, 18 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................................ 7
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1976)............................................................. 18
`Aspin v. Dep’t of Def., 491 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ................................................................... 30
`Brock v. Weiser, 1987 WL 12686 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 1987) ................................................... 11, 12
`Chisler v. Johnston, 796 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Pa. 2011) .......................................................... 29
`Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ....................... 2, 7, 8
`* Dir., Off. of Thrift Supervision v. Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 124 F.3d 1304
`(D.C. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................................. 9, 16, 21
`Doe 2 v. Esper, 2019 WL 4394842 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2019) ....................................................... 11
`* Elec. Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Just., 739 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .......................... 6, 9, 10, 26
`Elec. Frontier Foundation v. Dep’t of Just., 890 F. Supp. 2d (D.D.C. 2012) .............................. 17
`EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) ................................................................................... 6, 8, 19, 26
`Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 466 F. Supp. 1088 (D.D.C. 1978) ............................................................... 14
`Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .............................................................. 18, 20
`First Heights Bank, FSB v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 312 (2000) ......................................... 20, 29
`Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) ....... 30
`FTC v. Bass Bros. Enterprises, Inc., 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16889
`(N.D. Ohio May 8, 1984) .......................................................................................................... 15
`FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983)................................................................................ 29, 30
`FTC v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 626 F.2d 966 (D.C. Cir. 1980).............................. 18, 20
`FTC v. Staples, Inc., 2016 WL 259642 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2016) ................................................... 22
`FTC v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................. 1, 6
`Heggestad v. Dep’t of Just., 182 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) ................................................ 7, 20
`Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) ...................................................................................... 29
`In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 274 F.R.D. 106
`(S.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................................................................................................. 12, 28
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ..................... 27
`In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................................. passim
`_________________
`* Authorities principally relied upon are marked with an asterisk.
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ........................................................................ 16
`In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on OCC, 145 F.3d 1422 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ......................... 11
`In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on OCC, 156 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (on rh’g) ......... 11
`Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 841 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D.D.C. 2012) ....................... 17
`Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 2019 WL 2452325 (D.D.C. June 12, 2019) ................... 16
`* Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .......................................................... 10, 11, 13
`* Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. FTC, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18242 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 1984) 14, 30
`Lundy v. Interfirst Corp., 105 F.R.D. 499 (D.D.C. 1985) ...................................................... 12, 13
`MacNamara v. City of New York, 249 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................. 29
`Murphy v. Dep’t of Army, 613 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .............................................. 18, 19, 20
`New York v. Facebook, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2021) .................................................... 12
`NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) .................................................................... 8
`Paisley v. CIA, 712 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1983), vacated in part on other grounds,
`724 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 7
`Parker v. United States DOJ Exec. Office for U.S. Attys., 78 F. Supp. 3d 238 (D.D.C. 2015) .... 14
`* Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 235 F.3d 598 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................. 18, 19, 21
`* SafeCard Svces., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ........................................... 14, 15
`Safeway Stores Inc. v. FTC, 428 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1977) ............................................... 19, 26
`Swartwood v. County of San Diego, 2013 WL 6670545 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) .................... 29
`Tax’n with Representation Fund v. IRS, 646 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1981)........................................ 7
`Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175 (D.D.C. 1998) ............................................................................. 30
`U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 777 (2021) ........................................ 25
`United States v. AT&T Co., 498 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1980) ...................................................... 24
`United States v. AT&T, 642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .............................................................. 19
`United States v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 908 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ........................................... 27
`United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U.S. 441 (1964) ........................................................ 26
`United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 17
`United States v. Gates, 35 F.R.D. 524 (D. Colo. 1964) ................................................................ 13
`United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (1975) ............................................. 28
`United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) ................................................... 30
`United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988) .................................................................. 24
`United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) ................. 12
`United States v. Phillip Morris Inc., 212 F.R.D. 421 (D.D.C. 2002) ........................................... 20
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`
`
`United States v. Warren, 42 F.3d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1994)................................................................ 24
`* United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792 (1984)................................................. 7, 19
`Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) ....................................................................... 16
`Wolfe v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 839 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc) ................... 9
`Worldnetdaily.com, Inc. v. DOJ, 215 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D.D.C. 2016) ......................................... 7, 9
`Statutes
`15 U.S.C. § 18a(i)(1)............................................................................................................... 12, 27
`15 U.S.C. § 53(b) ............................................................................................................................ 2
`15 U.S.C. § 57b-2(b)(3)(C) ........................................................................................................... 17
`15 U.S.C. § 57b-2(d)(1)(A)........................................................................................................... 17
`16 C.F.R. § 0.1 ................................................................................................................................ 2
`16 C.F.R. § 0.18 ...................................................................................................................... 14, 15
`16 C.F.R. § 3.54 .............................................................................................................................. 2
`16 C.F.R. § 4.10(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`16 C.F.R. § 4.11(b) ....................................................................................................................... 17
`16 C.F.R. §§ 3.1-3.83 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 21
`Other Authorities
`5 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles
`and Their Application (4th ed. Supp. 2022) ............................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`The Court should deny Meta’s motion to compel production of FTC staff’s internal
`
`recommendations and advice relating to Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. ECF
`
`No. 152 (hereinafter “Mem.”). The FTC has properly asserted deliberative process protection
`
`over each of the documents at issue, and Meta’s non-credible arguments to the contrary flout or
`
`ignore precedent. Infra Section I. Moreover, Meta does not even contest the FTC’s assertion of
`
`work product protection over the documents at issue, except with respect to two recommendation
`
`memos prepared by the FTC’s Bureau of Economics staff. Infra Section II. Meta’s work-
`
`product arguments regarding these two documents are unavailing, and in any event the two
`
`Bureau of Economics recommendation memos are unquestionably protected by deliberative
`
`process privilege. See FTC v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 1984).
`
`Further, the attorney-client privilege and investigative file privileges apply. Infra Section V.
`
`Meta fails to advance any precedent suggesting that these privileges were waived when
`
`the FTC produced the documents in response to a formal Congressional request, expressly noting
`
`the privileges implicated and requesting confidential treatment (which Congress has provided).
`
`Infra Section III. Nor does Meta address the policy concern that animates D.C. Circuit authority
`
`holding that such productions do not waive privilege: a finding of waiver would chill Congress’s
`
`future ability to obtain information from the FTC and other federal agencies.
`
`Finally, Meta’s hyperbolic accusations of a “cover up” do not justify abrogating the
`
`FTC’s privileges. Infra Section IV. Contrary to Meta’s overblown claims, the documents at
`
`issue do not contain “findings” of the FTC, “evidence” that is unavailable to Meta, or
`
`“admissions” that Meta can use in this case. Instead, the documents express the analyses and
`
`advice of individual staff members, which are core work product, and an essential part of “the
`
`give-and-take of the consultative process.” Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Staff members’ advice, based on the necessarily limited inquiry
`
`undertaken at the time of the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions, is not dispositive of – or
`
`even particularly informative about – any issues in this matter. Despite Meta’s overheated
`
`rhetoric, the disclosure of the FTC’s privileged documents is not necessary to illuminate the real
`
`issue in this case, which is Meta’s unlawful maintenance of monopoly power, and not (as Meta
`
`would pretend) the particulars of FTC staff members’ 2012 and 2014 analyses.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The FTC’s Bureau of Competition (“BC”) investigates potential antitrust violations,
`
`recommends further actions to the Commission, and prosecutes any enforcement actions the
`
`Commission authorizes. Declaration of BC Director Holly Vedova, Ex. A ¶ 6. (Hereinafter, all
`
`references to “Ex.,” unless otherwise identified, refer to exhibits to the Declaration of Daniel
`
`Matheson (“Matheson Decl.”).) The FTC’s Bureau of Economics (“BE”) advises the
`
`Commission on economic aspects of its functions and provides “economic and statistical
`
`assistance to the enforcement Bureaus in the investigation and trial of cases.” 16 C.F.R. § 0.1;
`
`see Ex. A ¶¶ 6, 24. During investigations, BC attorneys and BE economists work closely
`
`together to conduct and coordinate investigations. Ex. A ¶ 24.
`
`The Commission neither “clears” nor “approves” transactions; instead, it may only take
`
`action to challenge a transaction, which it does by voting to initiate an administrative proceeding
`
`or file suit in federal court. See 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) (authorizing FTC to seek injunctive relief in
`
`federal court); 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.1-3.83 (FTC rules of practice for administrative proceedings). The
`
`only time the Commission passes judgment on a transaction is when the Commission itself
`
`formally decides on a transaction’s legality as part of an administrative proceeding. See, e.g., 16
`
`C.F.R. § 3.54. The Commission does not otherwise make “findings” or come to “conclusions”
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`about a transaction’s legality, or any predicate issues. Meta’s assertions that the documents it
`
`seeks include the FTC’s “findings,” “determinations,” or “views” are incorrect: the documents
`
`are pre-decisional in nature, and do not constitute agency findings or decisions.
`
`Meta’s motion failed to identify the specific documents at issue or the privilege
`
`descriptions provided by the FTC, instead lumping the relevant documents into eight generally
`
`described buckets. See ECF No. 152-1 at 7. In an effort to provide clarity, the FTC below
`
`identifies the documents at issue and the relevant privilege entries. See Ex. B (Privilege Log).
`
`I.
`
`Recommendation Packages Relating to the 2012 Instagram Acquisition
`
`BC staff and BC Front Office attorneys communicate opinions, advice, strategies, and
`
`recommendations to the Commission by transmitting recommendation packages. Ex. A ¶¶ 9, 11.
`
`These packages contain pertinent documents including recommendation memoranda. See id.
`
`Two recommendation packages contain all Instagram-related documents Meta seeks in its
`
`Motion; as described below, these are Entries 1a-1e, and Entries 2a, 2b, and 2e.
`
`A. May 2012 Recommendation Package to the Commission Regarding
`Compulsory Process (Entries 1a Through 1e)
`
`Entry 1a is a cover memo from the BC Front Office to the Commission regarding
`
`compulsory process; Entry 1b is a memo from BC staff to the Commission. See Ex. B; Mem. 7
`
`(Arabic numeral (1)). Both recommendation memos represent an integral part of how the FTC
`
`makes decisions about enforcing the antitrust laws; candor and open debate in such memoranda
`
`are vital to the Commission’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion and its case selection process.
`
`See Ex. A ¶¶ 20-21. These documents are drafted for law enforcement purposes. Id. ¶ 23. FTC
`
`staff analyze each case understanding that the Commission could ultimately vote to initiate legal
`
`action as a result of the investigation. Id. ¶ 25.
`
`Entries 1c and 1d are BC and BE memos “to the Merger Screening Committee, later
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`provided to the Commission as an attachment to the compulsory process memorandum.” See
`
`Mem. 7 (Arabic numerals (2) and (3)); see also Ex. B. As Director Vedova’s Declaration
`
`describes, pursuant to the FTC’s procedures, based on information gathered in a preliminary
`
`review, in May 2012 BC and BE staff drafted separate recommendation memoranda to the
`
`FTC’s Merger Screening Committee regarding whether to seek additional information from
`
`Facebook and Instagram. Ex. A ¶ 14. The Merger Screening Committee is typically composed
`
`of managers from the BC Front Office, BE Front Office, and representatives of the FTC Chair.
`
`Id. ¶ 10. The May 2012 memos to the Merger Screening Committee comprised staff’s opinions,
`
`analyses, and mental impressions about information gathered to that point from Facebook and
`
`Instagram, and opinions and advice regarding strategy for further investigation. Id. ¶ 14.
`
`Meta characterizes Entry 1e as a “resolution authorizing the use of compulsory process.”
`
`See Mem. 7 (Arabic numeral (6)). As described in the FTC’s privilege log, it is a draft resolution
`
`from staff and therefore pre-decisional. See Ex. B.
`
`Following standard agency practice, all of these documents were compiled into a single
`
`recommendation package to inform the Commission’s 2012 vote regarding compulsory process.
`
`Ex. A ¶ 17; see Ex. B, Entries 1-1e. These documents communicate the authors’ analyses,
`
`theories, opinions, advice, and recommendations to the Commission. Ex. A ¶ 17. To the extent
`
`that these memoranda include or reference factual material, such material either is inextricably
`
`interwoven with the authors’ own evaluations, analyses, and recommendations, or discloses the
`
`mental impressions of FTC staff. Id.
`
`B. August 2012 Recommendation Package to the Commission Regarding
`Closing the Investigation (Entries 2a, 2b, and 2e)
`
`Entries 2a, 2b, and 2e are each a memorandum to the Commission “with respect to
`
`closing the investigation”: 2a is from the BC Front Office, 2b is from BC staff, and 2e is from
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`BE staff. See Mem. 7 (Arabic numerals (4) and (5)). Each of these documents was prepared
`
`prior to, and provided information and analysis to inform, the Commission’s decision in 2012 to
`
`close the Instagram investigation. Ex. A ¶ 17. These documents communicate the authors’
`
`analyses, advice, and recommendations. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17; see Ex. B, Entries 2-2g. To the extent
`
`that these memoranda include or reference factual material, such material either is inextricably
`
`interwoven with the authors’ own analyses and recommendations or discloses the mental
`
`impressions of FTC staff. Ex. A ¶ 17.
`
`After deliberating on these recommendations, the Commission voted to close the
`
`Instagram investigation on August 22, 2012. Given that the Commission did not adjudicate the
`
`legality of the acquisition in an administrative proceeding, see supra at 2-3, the Commission did
`
`not make any “findings,” conclusions, or determinations about the legality of Facebook’s
`
`acquisition of Instagram or any predicate issues such as market power or the competitive effects
`
`of the transaction. Accordingly, the FTC informed Meta that while the Commission took no
`
`further action at that time, “[t]his action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation
`
`may not have occurred . . . . The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the
`
`public interest may require.” See Ex. C (A. Tabor Ltr. To T. Barnett).
`
`II. Notes Relating to the FTC’s 2014 WhatsApp Review (Entries 3 and 4)
`
`In 2014, BC staff reviewed HSR filings and interviewed third parties in connection with
`
`Meta’s proposed acquisition of WhatsApp. Ex. A ¶ 15. The two documents at issue, Entries 3
`
`and 4, are BC staff notes containing analyses, legal theories, opinions, and strategy as part of the
`
`staff’s deliberations regarding what investigational steps to take. Id. ¶¶ 15, 18; Ex. B, Entries 3,
`
`4; see also Mem. 7 (discussing WhatsApp documents at issue). Any factual material referenced
`
`in these documents is inextricably interwoven with the authors’ own evaluations, analyses, and
`
`recommendations or discloses the mental impressions of FTC staff. Ex. A ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The deliberative process privilege, work-product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, and
`
`investigatory file privilege protect the documents at issue. The FTC did not waive privileges by
`
`producing the documents to Congress, and Meta’s fervent desire for the documents cannot
`
`overcome the applicable privileges.
`
`I.
`
`The Deliberative Process Privilege Protects from Discovery FTC Recommendation
`Memoranda (Entries 1a-e, 2a, 2b, and 2e) and Attorneys’ Notes (Entries 3 and 4)
`
`Meta is simply not credible when it asserts that “The Deliberative Process Privilege Does
`
`Not Apply to the Instagram Memoranda” – that is, to Entries 1a-e, 2a, 2b, and 2e. See Mem. 12.
`
`Meta itself concedes that precedent establishes that FTC recommendation memoranda are
`
`protected by the deliberative process privilege. See Mem. 20 (citing Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`742 F.2d at 1161, which held that two FTC BE recommendation memoranda were protected by
`
`the deliberative process privilege). Meta does not cite a single instance in which any merger-
`
`related FTC recommendation memo has ever been produced, and counsel for the FTC is aware
`
`of none. Entries 3 and 4 are equally subject to the deliberative process privilege.
`
`A.
`
`The Deliberative Process Privilege Applies Because the Recommendation
`Memoranda and Attorney Notes Are Predecisional and Deliberative
`
`“The deliberative process privilege protects agencies from being ‘forced to operate in a
`
`fishbowl.’” Elec. Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Just., 739 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2014) [hereinafter
`
`EFF”] (quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87 (1973)). The privilege protects “documents that
`
`are ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative,’ meaning they reflect advisory opinions, recommendations,
`
`and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are
`
`formulated, or the personal opinions of the writer prior to the agency’s adoption of a policy.”
`
`EFF, 739 F.3d at 7 (cleaned up). “To show that a document is predecisional, the agency need
`
`not identify a specific final agency decision; it is sufficient to establish ‘what deliberative process
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`is involved, and the role played by the documents at issue in the course of that process.’”
`
`Heggestad v. Dep’t of Just., 182 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2000) (quoting Coastal States, 617
`
`F.2d at 868). Materials are “deliberative” if they reflect “the give-and-take of the consultative
`
`process” by which a decision is made. See Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866.
`
`This privilege applies especially to law enforcement recommendation memoranda.
`
`“[T]he information-gathering and deliberative process that produces” “a decision as to whether
`
`or not to prosecute someone” “is precisely the type of material” that the deliberative process
`
`privilege protects. Paisley v. CIA, 712 F.2d 686, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1983), vacated in part on other
`
`grounds, 724 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Heggestad held that the privilege applied to law
`
`enforcement recommendation memoranda, including those declining to prosecute, and that
`
`“allowing release of these memoranda would violate the intent of the deliberative process
`
`privilege.” 182 F. Supp. 2d at 10. Likewise, Worldnetdaily.com, Inc. v. DOJ, 215 F. Supp. 3d
`
`81, 84 (D.D.C. 2016), held that the privilege protected a memorandum laying out “the evidence
`
`and analysis” underlying a recommendation to supervisors about whether to prosecute. See also
`
`A. Michael’s Piano, Inc. v. FTC, 18 F.3d 138, 147 (2d Cir. 1994) (the privilege protected a
`
`memorandum from FTC staff to the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection
`
`containing a recommendation regarding disposition of an investigation). Whether these
`
`decisions arise under FOIA or in the context of civil discovery is irrelevant because the analysis
`
`is the same. See, e.g., United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, 799-800 (1984);
`
`Tax’n with Representation Fund v. IRS, 646 F.2d 666, 676 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (FOIA construed “to
`
`encompass the protections traditionally afforded certain documents pursuant to evidentiary
`
`privileges in the civil discovery context,” including deliberative process); contra Mem. 16 (FOIA
`
`cases are inapplicable because this case does not involve a FOIA request); see also id. at 29-30.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB Document 160 Filed 07/19/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`
`
`Here, the documents Meta seeks communicated FTC staff’s advice, recommendations,
`
`and opinions to the Commission about whether and how to investigate Meta’s acquisitions of
`
`Instagram and WhatsApp and possible antitrust violations. Meta does not dispute that the
`
`documents are predecisional. Nor can Meta dispute that the documents are deliberative, as they
`
`constitute “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process
`
`by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`
`421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975); see also Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866 (same).
`
`B.
`
`FTC Regulations Provide for a Twenty-Five-Year Application of the
`Deliberative Process Privilege, Not Ten Years as Meta Argues
`
`Meta incorrectly asserts that deliberative process protection does not apply to FTC
`
`memoranda that are over ten years old, Mem. 12-13, relying only on the FTC’s 2016 Open
`
`Government Plan, which is a non-binding announcement to the public about open government
`
`goals. Meta ignores FTC regulations providing that the deliberative process privilege applies for
`
`twenty-five years after a document is created. 16 C.F.R. § 4.10(a)(3). The twenty-five-year
`
`period provided by the actual regulations controls. Decl. of Elizabeth Tucci ¶ 19; compare id.
`
`(FTC regulations adopted twenty-five-year period on December 22, 2016), with Mem. 13 (FTC
`
`Open Government Plan announced on September 15, 2016).
`
`C. Any Factual Material in the Documents Is “Inextricably Interwoven” with
`Staff’s Analysis and Recommendations
`
`Contrary to Meta’s representation, the Supreme Court in Mink did not simply say that
`
`“purely factual” material must be disclosed. See Mem. 13-14 (citing Mink, 410 U.S. at 87-88).
`
`Rather, the Court observed that only “purely factual material co

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket