City of Colorado Springs v. David White November 1998

Home Browse Search

967 P.2d 1042, City of Colorado Springs v. White, (Colo. 1998) document from a subordinate to a superior official is more likely to be predecisional, and thus protected, while a document moving in the opposite direction is more likely to contain instructions to staff explaining the reasons for a decision already made. [12] Witnesses «216(1) 410 - - -- 410II Competency 410II(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications 410k216 Communications to or Information Acquired by Public Officers 410k216(1) In General; Official or Governmental Privilege. The governmental deliberative process privilege typically covers recommendations, advisory opinions, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other *1042 subjective documents that reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency; the disclosure of documents which are so candid or personal in nature would be likely to stifle future honest and frank communication within the agency, and thus would adversely affect the purposes of the privilege. [13] Witnesses X222 410 - - -- 410II Competency 410II(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications 410k222 Evidence as to Nature and Circumstances of Communication or Other Subject- Matter. The initial burden of proof falls upon the government entity asserting the deliberative process privilege. [14]Records X57 326 - - -- 326II Public Access 3261I(B) General Statutory Disclosure Requirements 326k53 Matters Subject to Disclosure; Exemptions 326k57 Internal Memoranda or Letters; Executive Privilege. The procedural requirements for the assertion of the governmental deliberative process privilege in response to a request under open records law are intended to assure that the requesting party's interest in the information is not submerged beneath governmental obfuscation and mischaracterization, and to allow the courts to effectively and efficiently Page 3 evaluate the nature of the disputed documents. West's C.R.S.A. § 24- 72- 202(6)(a)(I). [ 15] Records c�z- 62 326 - - -- 326II Public Access 326II(B) General Statutory Disclosure Requirements 326k61 Proceedings for Disclosure 326k62 In General; Request and Compliance. Assertion of the governmental deliberative process privilege in response to request under open records law must be made in the form of a "Vaughn index," which requires a specific and detailed assertion of the privilege; however, the index need not be so detailed that it compromises the purposes served by the privilege. West's C.R.S.A. § 24- 72- 202(6)(a)(I) 16] Records � 62 326 - - -- 326II Public Access 326II(B) ' General Statutory Disclosure Requirements 326k61 Proceedings for Disclosure 326k62 In General; Request and Compliance. The Vaughn index should provide a specific description of each document claimed to be protected by the governmental deliberative process privilege from disclosure pursuant to request under open records law, including each document's author, recipient, and subject matter, should explain why each document qualifies for the privilege, including descriptions of the deliberative process to which the document is related and the role played by document in that process, should discuss, in the form of an affidavit, why disclosure of each document would be harmful, and, especially in the case of a large document, should distinguish between those portions of the document that are disclosable and those that are allegedly privileged. West's C.R.S.A. § 24- 72- 202(6)(a)(I). [17] Witnesses X223 410 - - -- 410II Competency 410II(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications 410k223 Determination as to Admissibility. An in camera inspection of the disputed material need not automatically follow upon the claim of governmental deliberative process privilege. Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works