subpoena, but that it was necessary to do so on a document-by-document basis. Order on Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-4. Now the Committee contends that the documents that survived that review are not covered by the deliberative process privilege because the privilege only applies to deliberations concerning the development of policy. See PL’s Mem. for Mot. to Compel at 26-27 (asserting that the privilege allows “agency decisionmakers to engage in that frank exchange of opinions and recommendations necessary to the formulation of pol . U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 478 F.Supp.2d 77, 83 (D.D.C.2007) (finding that deliberative process privilege covered email messages discussing the agency’s response to news article); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Reno, No. 00-0723, 2001 WL 1902811 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2001), at *3 (<HOLDING>). Following the same reasoning, the Court holds
holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege holding that deliberations about how to handle press inquiries and other public relations issues are covered by exemption 5 under foia holding that a foia request should be read to seek all documents covered by a catchall holding that documents concerning how to respond to ongoing inquiries from the press and congress about the entry of a government witness and mexican national into the united states fell under the deliberative process privilege holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects