clearly not well- grounded in the law, given the fact that Mr. Friedman sought the law enforcement files in an ongoing investigation. Cf. Reynolds v. United States, 345 U.S. 1, 11, 73 S.Ct. 528, 533, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953) (suggesting that failure to pursue . alternative means of obtaining information "might have given the respondents the evidence to make out their case without forcing the showdown of privilege"). 3 . In addition to the law enforcement investigatory files privilege, the CFTC and SEC argued that two other privileges barred production of the documents sought in this case. First, they contended that the governmental privilege for intragovernmental deliberative documents protected the documents from disclosure. See McClelland v. Andrus, 606 F.2d 1278, 1286-87 (D.C.Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); Association for Women in Science v. Califano,
recognizing privilege holding that governmental entities may assert attorneyclient privilege to prevent disclosure of information otherwise required by statute recognizing governmental privilege precluding disclosure of official information that would be injurious to the consultative functions of the government holding that disclosure of predecisional documents would injure the consultative process within the government holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege