of legal and policy issues” by ensuring that agencies are not “forced to operate in a fishbowl.” Mapother v. Dep’t of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533, 1537 (D.C.Cir.1993), quoting Wolfe, 839 F.2d at 773. The Court of Appeals has applied that privilege to such mundane operational matters as the selection of a vendor to provide data retrieval services. Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 575 F.2d 932, 935 (D.C.Cir.1978) (“While [plaintiff] correctly notes that the end product of these Air Force deliberations on the [Mead Data Central] proposal is not a ‘broad policy decision, that deliberation is nonetheless a type of decisional process that Exemption 5 seeks to protect from undue public exposure.”). See also In re Apollo Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 251 F.R.D. 12, 29 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>), citing Espy, 121 F.3d at 737 and N.L.R.B. v.
holding that a complete prohibition against an opponents use of in camera review to establish the applicability of the crimefraud exception to the attorneyclient privilege is inconsistent with the policies underlying the privilege holding that documents reflecting the department of educations review of a universitys compliance with title iv were covered by the privilege and rejecting the argument that a specific policy judgment is necessary for the privilege to apply because the privilege servesto protect the processes by which governmental decisions as well as policies are formulated holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege recognizing privilege