in those respects the consultant functions just as an employee[.]” Id. Although the court does not have the benefit of placing these documents in context, a review shows no indication that nondisclosure is justified. KBR is clearly not an agency of the government, and the defendant did not hire KBR to help with the deliberations of the agency. Rather, KBR represented its own interests and, in exchange, was awarded a lucrative contract from the government. In Klamath, the Supreme Court recognized the difference between consultants who act like the agency’s own personnel and those who communicate with an agency “with their own, albeit entirely legitimate, interests in mind.” 532 U.S. at 12, 121 S.Ct. 1060; see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Dep’t of Justice, 576 F.Supp. 739, 745 (D.D.C.1983) (<HOLDING>). Here, KBR is acting as a “self-advocate[ ] at
holding that documents fell outside of exemption 5 when they were not prepared for a purely internal governmental matter in which the agency was simply seeking the advice of disinterested consultants holding that if documents are privileged in the hands of the client they retain that privilege when given to an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice holding that a party failed in meeting its burden that documents were work product because the party resisting discovery failed to present affidavits or other evidentiary support for its contention that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation holding that warrants of deportation were properly characterized as nontestimonial official records that were prepared independent of this litigation and were not prepared to prove facts for use in future criminal prosecutions holding that deliberative process privilege protects written advice opinions and recommendations to public body from outside consultants obtained during public bodys decistonmaking process