asserted here both the attorney work product and deliberative process privileges to justify its invocation of Exemption 5. The court agrees that the seven categories of documents withheld under Exemption 5 were properly withheld as protected attorney work product. Plaintiff has not contested DOJ’s work product assertion and therefore has conceded the issue. See Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C.Cir.2004); Day v. D.C. Dep’t of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 191 F.Supp.2d 154, 159 (D.D.C.2002). Moreover, even if Plaintiff had contested the issue, as the courts concluded in Wright and Dorsey, the work product privilege covers the withheld materials. See Wright, 121 F.Supp.3d at 184-86, 2015 WL 4910502, at *10-11; Dorsey, 85 F.Supp.3d at 217, 2015 WL 1431707, at *4 (<HOLDING>); see also Wolfson v. United States, 672
recognizing privilege holding that internal agency memoranda are presumptively part of the record on review subject to any privilege the agency might claim one of which is of course that which protects internal memoranda embodying the deliberative processes of the agency and its staff holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied holding declaration or affidavit must support work product claim for documents listed solely as work product on privilege log holding that title iii authorization memoranda were covered by the work product privilege