“documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations[,] and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Klamath Water Users Protective Assoc., 532 U.S. at 9, 121 S.Ct. 1060 (emphases added); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 150, 95 S.Ct. 1504. There is no requirement that those “governmental decisions” reflect' broad-based policymaking. Indeed, courts routinely find that the privilege applies to individualized governmental decisions. See, e.g., Farley, 11 F.3d at 1389 (finding that privilege applied to FTC documents that “were clearly part of the deliberative process leading to the [Department’s] decision” “to bring an action against Farley”); Guzman v. City of Chi., 2011 WL 55979, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2011) (<HOLDING>); E.E.O.C. v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 395
holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence holding that privilege applied to draft summary reports generated during ipras investigation into police officers alleged assault on the plaintiff and her family holding that a police officers words during an assault make clear that he was motivated by a protected ground holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report