In addition, OA filed a renewed  Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction on April 25, 2008, in compliance with a briefing schedule previously set by theCourt. In light of the fact that CREW’s Opposition to that Motion is due on May 9, 2008, theCourt required OA to produce the OLC Memo
by 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008, so thatCREW’s Motion to Compel could be promptly resolved.3Court’s Order of March 30, 2008 (which also serves as OA’s affidavit required by the Court’sMarch 30, 2008).
Docket No. , Docket No. [44-2] (“Medaglia Decl.”). Ms. Medaglia isthe General Counsel of OA, and has held that position since May 14, 2007. Medaglia Decl. ¶ 2.CREW filed its Reply in support of its Motion to Compel on April 23, 2008. CREW’s Replysuggested that the Court review the August 21, 2007 OLC memorandum at issue (hereinafter the“OLC Memo”)
in order to evaluate OA’s claims that the memo may be withheld under either the attorney-client privilege or the deliberative process privilege. The Court acceptedCREW’s suggestion, and on April 28, 2008, issued a Minute Order requiring OA to produce theOLC Memo
and under seal for the Court’s review. The Court has now
reviewed the OLC Memo.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes “discovery regardingany nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” and further explainsthat “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Courthas already concluded–during the March 28, 2008 conference call on the record in this case andin the Court’s March 30, 2008 Order–that when OA stopped functioning as an agency under FOIA and the FRA is relevant insofar as it provides “context” for OA’s defense that it is not anagency subject to FOIA.
CREW Mot. to Compel, Ex. A (Tr. of 3/28/08 Conf. Call) at 4:16-
Case 1:07-cv-00964-CKK Document 50 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 3 of 14