that memoranda recommending continued wiretap authorization were protected by attorney work-product privilege). The court also agrees with DOJ that the action memoranda from OEO to the Assistant Attorney General recommending approval of the Title III requests, as well as email messages between the requesting and reviewing prosecutors, are protected under the deliberative process privilege. Def.’s Mem. at 22. Such documents are both “predecisional” and “deliberative,” as required to invoke that privilege. See Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C.Cir.1997); see also Wolfson, 672 F.Supp.2d at 30 (finding that memoranda recommending intercept authorization were covered by the deliberative process privilege); Gov’t Accountability Project v. DOJ, 852 F.Supp.2d 14, 25-26 (D.D.C. 2012) (<HOLDING>). The court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs effort
recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications holding that emails among prosecutors relating to decision not to prosecute were covered by the deliberative process privilege holding that in analyzing whether materials are protected from disclosure under exemption 5 of foia which protects materials covered by the deliberative process privilege  a court must first be able to pinpoint an agency decision or policy to which these documents contributed and stating that the decision whether to prosecute an individual is the type of decision protected by the privilege holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege